Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive142

Abuse of Administror's right by User:Nlu
User:Nlu have abused his right of an administrator in the page of Goguryeo. 'Because User:ABCBBCKBS had removed the entire section of Modern Politics'', I reverted it to a previous version. ''' In addition, the previous version, which I reverted to, was similar as the version edited by User::Nlu. Even I reverted to the version that is similar as the version by Nlu, he said that the Modern politics violate the POV. , and then he removed the entire section of Modern politics. Please compare the three version by me and Nlu. 1. This is my reverting due to User:ABCBBCKBS [] 2. This is the previous version by Nlu[] 3. This is the version of Nlu by his abuse of administrator's right. [] The section of modern politics is entirely removed. He warned me to block my id if I revert the article that has modern politics. I dont think that it is fair. I have dicsussed about this, but he dont want to discuss about it. see ( User_talk:Nlu.)--Hairwizard91 06:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * He is not abusing his Administrator rights. Please read WP:BLOCK, WP:DEL and WP:PROTECT before using such a word. Only under certain circumstances can admins be sanctioned for "abuse of Admin powers", and I see none of it there. Please provide specific diffs which demonstrate a clear breach of administrative protocol, with proper reference to what is stated in the Wikipedia admins policies, and then maybe something can be done. Also remember that this is not the Wikipedia complaint department - if anyone else feels this section should be deleted because it is a perfect example of what ANI is not, go ahead. Daniel.Bryant 07:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What I mean is not difference between version. The version edited by me was identical with the version that Nlu had edited. But, now he says that the version edited by me viloates the POV rule even though my edited version is identical with the version had edited by Nlu.--Hairwizard91 09:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And how does that make your complaint qualify as "administrator abuse", as opposed to "normal abuse"? Normal "abuse" goes down the dispute resolution path, which is exactly where this should be headed. It is not admin "abuse", because they didn't use their admin powers to act in an "abusive" manner. Period. Daniel.Bryant 13:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, I have no idea why Nlu reverted you. I think its time we block him for his sneaky vandalism. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He warned me to block me from Wiki editing at the first reverting, and as follows
 * [[Image:Stop_hand.svg|left|30px]] This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Goguryeo, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Nlu (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC) But, I think it settles down now. Thanks--Hairwizard91 04:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Likely return of banned User:Courtney Akins
FYI, I have opened a check user case on new user User:UCF Cheerleader who I strongly suspect is a sockpuppet of community banned User:Courtney Akins. The RFCU case is here. The similarities are exceptionally strong: User:Courtney Akins received a community ban for trolling and disruption. This user (likely a male) portrayed himself as an attractive stripper from Florida, uploading a suggestive photo of "herself" to her userpage. She then created an article on a porn series (Throat Gaggers), posted strange questions to the Reference Desk, created an article on 19th. century Britain (Early conceptions of the Channel Tunnel), while claiming to be a History student, flirted with admins and started an RfA.

Now up pops User:UCF Cheerleader who is a "hot 19 year old cheerleader from Florida" with the userpage picture to prove it. "She" creates the article on a different porn series (Housewife Bangers), posts a strange question to the Reference Desk, started AfD-ing article about 19th. century British MPs, and is now flirting with users and hinting at an RfA. Thanks, Gwernol 12:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Lovely. Best thing to do in this case is probably add User wikipedia/Administrator someday to her userpage, as it seems to doom everyone that uses it to never becoming an admin... (j/k) Seriously though, until the checkuser is back, I'd just say keep an eye on her if you're worried. ~Kylu ( u | t )  20:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A strong similarity in pattern of edits can be enough to establish likely similarity/sockpuppetry, without actually needing a CU to confirm it. Also, if the user is being disruptive, per se, it doesn't matter if they are a sock or not... ++Lar: t/c 00:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahem. --Aaron 02:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems misguided at best... Perhaps not technically disruptive but a user that new hasn't the history to be properly reviewed. ++Lar: t/c 04:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Moot point. See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, this user has been blocked. I support the block based on review of contributions and actions. ++Lar: t/c 05:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User:UCF Cheerleader was indef blocked as an obvious disruptive sockpuppet of User:Courtney Akins, as has User:Harthacanute3. We should watch out for other new users showing similar behavior - flirting with admins, interest in or creating articles on porn series of minor notability, inappropriate editor review and/or RfA, spurious AfDs on 19th. century British MPs etc. Gwernol 18:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User: Kuban kazak
There has been a faked, staged photo percipted as a real one in the article Russophobia, I provided a direct source for the fact that it is a forgery, but Kuban kazak reverted it, accusing me falsely of vandalism, which is also a personal attack. It is clear to me that he is working for a Russian nationalist agenda and tries to make up atrocities by putting up fake photos. You can see from the edits which photo is the one in question. --Jaakko Sivonen 13:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My dear friend AN/I is not the place to tattle. First of all if you believe the image is dubious the first place to go is the talk page of the article and explain why you think, then modify the caption with something like this image is believed to be forged(ref). Partisan blanking IS vandalism. --Kuban Cossack [[Image:Flag of the Russian Empire (black-yellow-white).svg|25px|]] 13:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I did give the source in the first place and advised to check a page with more information. There was no grounds for a vandalism charge. --Jaakko Sivonen 13:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Blanking IS Vandalism unless there is a full Consensus, and please accusing me of nationalism is a strict POV and is against WP:CIVIL and WP:Neutrality. --Kuban Cossack [[Image:Flag of the Russian Empire (black-yellow-white).svg|25px|]] 13:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm going into teacher-mode now: please proceed to dispute resolution, as the above is not the intended use of this page. Follow the instructions on the dispute resolution page, and reach a solution. You do not need help from this page. Please move on. Daniel.Bryant 13:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I second Daniel.Bryant's advice. Guys, please stop accusing each other of vandalism. What you have is content dispute. Jaako, you also accused me of spreading russofilic and anti-Finnish non-NPOV propaganda on Russo-nationalist base after I pointed out to you that your continuing attempts to suppress Swedish (sic!) names of medieval castles in Finland and Russia do not conform to our policies. Trust me, every famous WWII photo (example), in any way sympathetic of the Sovies, has been declared a fake in this project by those editors whose agenda is to picture Russians as subhuman beasts. Why should we believe an obscure book you pointed out, when you describe yourself on your user page as "a Finn nationalist" and engage in tendentious editing? How do we know that it is a reliable source and not a revisionist booklet? -- Ghirla -трёп-  13:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Could everyone please stay civil here, and can this discussion please take place on the articles talk page for now? It does appear that Jaakko has provided evidence of the photo being a fake and I tend to agree that it should be removed or labeled as such, but it would be best if editors involved with the article worked it out on the article talk page. This was not vandalism as he clearly stated in edit comments why he was removing it. Still, after a removal and a revert of the removal it would have been best to start a conversation rather than removing it again. --StuffOfInterest 13:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wise words. Move to the article talk page, and post nothing more here until you actually need administrator intervention, and then only as an absolute last resort. So can we all move away from clogging up WP:DR with complaints, and negotiate a solution on the article's talk page? And don't forget, it's extremely bad form to give vandalism warnings, or accuse other people of vandalism, whilst in a content dispute. WP:VAND even says so. Daniel.Bryant 13:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The image should be removed only if reliable (per WP:RS) sources are provided. There is no lack of sources claiming this image is a fake. Yet we don't remove it from articles, unless reliable sources substantiate the conspiracy theory. -- Ghirla -трёп-  13:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The book in question is a popular high school history book, not an "obscure one", and there is no reason to doubt it unless you give other reference. Thus, it is reliable. You have not given any evidence to support it's authenticity. In addition, the Soviets did a lot of propaganda on exactly these kind of things, are you denying that...? That photo's purpose is to show Finnish prison camps as somekind of Nazi-style concentration camps which they were not: they are comparable to the Amrican internation camps for the Japanese. BTW this is general knowledge in Finland, so no god damn conspiracies. --Jaakko Sivonen 13:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please take this comment to Talk:Russophobia or the talk page of the image, WP:AN/I is not the place to discuss this, if need to I am prepared to begin a mediation btw. --Kuban Cossack [[Image:Flag of the Russian Empire (black-yellow-white).svg|25px|]] 13:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What is "Ei helvetti, mikä typerys! Mene levittämään kuvottavaa russofiliaa muualle!"? El_C 20:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "No hell, what stupid! More propagating sick russofilia elsewhere!" (Finnish) ~Kylu ( u | t )  04:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you use an online translator for that or something? -Lapinmies 16:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Yidnek
New and very persistent account with poor editing skills, in the past two days continually changing the National Anthem of Ethiopia on the article Ethiopia and other such half-baked antics, refuses to engage in even one word of discussion. Left warnings on his talk, which have been ignored. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you explain in more detail? This user linked to a BBC audio file, which seems like a reliable source.  Per WP:BITE I hesitate to block a user who's very new and appears to be making cited edits.  Perhaps a friendly note about WP:3RR would be more appropriate.  Regards,  Durova  18:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have already left the 3RR template on his page. I know he is new, but he has been asked to respond or explain on discussion many times and has refused, just simply repeated the same edit, every hour or so for the past two days.  (First as an IP, then with the account).  Since I can't get him to discuss, I don't know what else to do, so now I am coming here. I have not seen any source other than him to suppose that Ethiopia has changed its anthem from Wodefit Gesgeshi, Widd Innat Ityopp'ya.  On occasion he has changed other bits of info in the Ethiopia infobox beside the anthem. He could at least explain why he is doing this non productive edit so insistently. To his credit, he has not edited since the last time I warned him, a few hours ago. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Bring it to Administrators' noticeboard/3RR if the problem continues.  Durova  18:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Empire
Moved to gibberish name by. Gazpacho 20:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours.  Durova  20:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've restored the page to its original title and deleted the redirect that resulted from moving back the page. A question for other admins: should the pagemove vandalism be deleted from the article history, or not? IIRC, that's standard procedure for WoW pagemove vandalism. A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 20:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not an admin, but this appears to be a one-off expression of frustration based on the move summary, rather than WOW-style vandalism. Deletion probably not necessary, though if the editor recovers their head and asks for such... -- nae'blis 21:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I imagine that there's no real issue with deleting vandalism pagemoves from the history, as it's not anything that contributes to the current state of the article. I'm curious about why though in this case, since it probably isn't going to be WP:DENY (if the user isn't converting to full-time vandalism). ~Kylu ( u | t )  16:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User removes comments from the talk page.
User Clevelander constantly removes my comment from a talk page, saying I am trying to evade block (although there is no block to evade). The talk page history shows this is not the first time he removes comments of other users.--Nixer 16:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nixer there's a tag right on your user page that reads: It has been established that this user is the puppet master of one or more abusive or block / ban-evading sock puppets as proven by this Checkuser request. Who are you trying to fool? -- Clevelander 18:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notice--Nixer 18:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ...and you removed a tag that an administrator placed on your user page. Do you really think that this will make you sound in any way credible? -- Clevelander 18:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He is not an administrator (just a POV-pusher and vandal). I am not blocked.--Nixer 18:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, both of you stop. Cleavelander, Nixer was not evading a block as you claim and you shouldn't have removed his comments. His block had expired which was obvious by the fact that he could *edit*. Please do not remove other people's comments again. The rest of argument is silly and needs to end. Nixer hasn't used sockpuppets for awhile, so its fine for the tag to be removed. Its in the edit history anyway and we don't need to keep branding people if they've refomed. pschemp | talk 00:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably Clevelander mixed me with another user in the same talk page.--Nixer 09:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Giguli
What is with this user's page? Are they trying to put advertisements on their page? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Never mind, a sysop removed it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Atomaton
I explained it to him in great detail on his talk page here: User talk:Atomaton. He responded by repeating his controversial unsourced assertions about a living person here. I reverted it and am now posting this here so others can deal with it. I am now out of it. WAS 4.250 20:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

More accurately is that:
 * I was asked to participate in a controversial discussion, (see Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard) I made a comment, the gist of which was that whether it was true or not, it should *not* be included in the article.  I did not comment in the article itself for obvious reasons.  The only reason I commented on the talk page was because I watch the BPL page, and was *asked* to give my opinion, not for any other reason.
 * User WAS at some later time (five or six hours) removed a portion of my comments fom the talk page. He did not comment in the talk pages as to why, nor did he comment on my own talk page.
 * I left polite, but firm feedback for WAS on his talk page. In a nutshell, I said "You edited (removed a portion of) my comments on the Jamie Lee Curtis page. This is not acceptable. I'm happy to discuss any differences of opinion I may have with other editors, but I won't accept other people editing my comments because they disagree."(See User_talk:WAS_4.250).  I also reverted the edit to my opinion on the talk page.
 * User WAS replied relatively quickly, explaining his rationale on my talk page. (see User_talk:Atomaton) He said "So you want to pick a fight with me over my correct use of WP:BLP while you use it to delete sources instead of claims and your edit subjects are troll bait (but I have not reviewed your edits on those sex pages). Altogether a troubling pattern"
 * I responded, explained that I was not offensive, only establishing limits. I acknowledged that I understood his rationale and respected it.  (and a great many other things).
 * I also responded on the Jamie Lee Curtis talkpage that I was offended to be *asked* to offer an opinion, and then told my opinion was politically incorrect when I did. []
 * This was reverted, by user WAS and part of my previous comments re-edited again. []
 * On my talk page, I told user WAS "Anyway, I respect your opinion on the matter and won't comment on the Jamie Lee Curtis issue again. I only wanted to point out that it was rude to ask for my opinion, and then say that my opinion was politically incorrect."
 * I removed all of my comments entirely from the Jamie Lee Curtis talk page.

All in all, it is my opinion that WAS was extremely rude. He implied I was trying to pick a fight with him, implied that my area of specialty was somehow not appropriate for editing, and just generally seemed to be pushy for no good reason when he could have just been polite, and assumed good faith on my part. I respect that his intentions, to protect the biography of a living person, as well as the image and integrity of Wikipedia was pure. As a member of that project I understand the sensitivity. I had no idea that I would be treated so roughly by responding to the request to offer my opinion at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard) Apparently the only comments desired were ones that carefully avoided discussing the subject.  Someone might want to post that on the talk page to avoid other people from being burned without warning. Atom 20:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Two things here. First Atom, policy cleary states unsourced claims can be removed from anyplace on wikipedia. You yourself admitted you have no source. Therefore, WAS's action was correct. If you don't agree with the policy, start a discussion on the policy talk page, but in the meantime, you must abide by it. Second, WAS, your statement on Atom's talk page was clearly made to put Atom on the defensive ("I also notice almost all your recent edits are sex related. So you want to pick a fight with me over my correct use of WP:BLP while you use it to delete sources instead of claims and your edit subjects are troll bait (but I have not reviewed your edits on those sex pages). Altogether a troubling pattern.") and you should have made a more polite comment rather than accusing Atom of various and sundry crimes. In short, neither or you handled this well but the removal was correct. pschemp | talk 21:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't argue the removal. What I stated was fact.  Disclosing the source would by contrary to my goals of saying that there was some reason it was important.  It isn't. I don't think it should be in the article whether it is true or not. I agreed that I did not offer a source, and hence agreed to abide by policy.  That is why I retracted my comments.  I would have retracted all of them but user WAS had already edited some of them out before I finished replying to his comment.  I don't suggest that the policy was applied incorrectly, or that it should be changed.


 * What I objected to was being slapped around as though I was some vandal, merely because I offered my opinion when asked. My original comment/response was really not intended to be malicious.  In responding the the BLP request, I was merely pointing out that I knew it to be true, not trying to pass on any gossip or rumors.  In restrospect saying that wasn't really relevant, and didn't need to be said.


 * I felt that I was polite, and assumed good faith even though he could have been more diplomatic. The only reason we are her on this page is because user WAS felt obliged to comment on it, even after I ceded his point on my talk page and removed my comments. (disregarding what he implied in his comments). Atom 21:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Editor using uncivil edit summaries
used quite an uncivil and WP:BITE edit summary on this this diff five days ago. I formally had her listed as a suspected sock of User:SPOV because of the incredibly similar userboxes. She also reported an autoblock because of User:reallytinyprint, who is another suspected sock (for the same reason). -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk) 01:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi there! I'm not sure that AN/I is the proper forum for this complaint.  Please use WP:RFCU to report suspected sockpuppets.  Also, I think a warning would suffice for an inappropriate edit summary, and isn't really something to post here about, especially nearly a week after the incident.  Thanks!  hoopydink Conas tá tú? 01:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I left a note on this user's talk page about using caps-locked edit summaries.--Konst.ableTalk 01:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Tremolo666
This seems to be a vandal-only account. This person has written nothing but hoax articles that are all up for deletion either at AfD or PROD. Mr Spunky Toffee 01:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for taking the time out of your day to let us know!  In the future, however, please use WP:AIV for vandalism-related issues.  In this case, I don't think that the user has actually done any vandalism.  The user simply seems to be a bit unfamiliar with notability policies.  Thanks again!  hoopydink Conas tá tú? 01:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Incivility and threats from User:Yas121
User:Yas121 has been generally ranting about "Zionists" and carrying on an increasingly vituperative campaign of incivility, personal attacks and threats in edit summaries and Talk: comments. Examples include "Rv childlish edits grow up!" "Don't revert factual stuff to satisfy your zionist agenda!" "here at wikipedia we like to take the pro-israeli-(zionist)-bias a little further than the rest." "Head over to Hamas....(Where Admins such as Jayjg have taken an oath to Rev/Block anyone who may disagree)... Yes it may read like a damming report written by the Israeli PR machine...but they still call it an encyclopaedic article!!!" "Jayjg, where would the Zionist cause be without you...as usual you Rev clearly explained edits to fit your zionist agenda. One day you'll get yours...". Is a permanent block in order at this point, or a shorter one of a week or so? Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Jayjg! First off, I think it's great judgement of you to list this incident here, given your involvement in the incident.  In briefly looking at the diffs you provided and the user's contribs, I would suggest a longish block (two to four months) for the user to chill out and reevaluate if he wants to postively contribute to this project or to continue to antagonise other users and attempt to interject his POV.  If he returns and changes his ways, then great!  We'll have another dedicated volunteer; if he comes back from his block and continues to negatively affect Wikipedia, then I'd have no problem with an immediate permanent block.  I hope this helps!  Cheers  hoopydink Conas tá tú? 02:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support about a month long block or so to reconsider his actions. – Chacor 02:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Two-month long block would be an appropriate response. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done and done. --InShaneee 02:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Behaviour of User:Wikid77 on Articles for deletion/FEMA Trailer
Can an admin please take a look at the behaviour of on Articles for deletion/FEMA Trailer? I find his persistent "updates" to be snappy, sarcastic, unnecessary, andd mostly uncivil. – Chacor 02:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I left a warning. --Core des at 08:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's rather strange how newbies know more about the wiki concept than sysops... afdanon'd. Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 09:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

again
There was a similar post here regarding this user. The thread died out when it appeared that the user was leaving. But he did not leave. Since then he has continued his bizzare edits -,. At present the message on his user page reads "I QUIT - I WILL DO MY OWN RESEARCH AND NOT SHARE BECAUSE I AM VERY SHELFISH.". It would be better if some admin would take a look at this matter again. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He looks like he has begun to vandalise since he posted his intention to quit. I've reverted and warned him, but I can't keep an eye on him today.  Can somone else do this?  --Kbdank71 13:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. He has continued despite his warnings. I have an eye on him for the moment. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Very shellfish? Danny Lilithborne 22:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for one week. Nearly everything he does has been reverted by someone (like massive tagging of archived pages for speedy deletion!) and the rest are inane votes on mfd with no reasoing. If he keeps this up after the block expires, he needs to be blocked even longer. pschemp | talk 01:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Very shellfish? Presumably it means he'll clam up and not move a mussel. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This user knows entirely too much about Wikipedia process for how new they are. Any other banned users with this bizarre behavior? Grand  master  ka  21:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Endgame has already been indefblocked by . About banned users, I don't know. He was in hibernation for a few months and then suddenly came up with those wierd questions on my (ongoing) RfA. But I don't recall ever coming across any user related to me with similar patterns of editing. So it must have been a coincidence. - Aksi_great (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be single-purpose account used to spam articles with links to furniture companies in India. I had issued a spam warning to him ealier in the year which was later removed by them. I don't think this account is going to be used to make any contructive edits to wikipedia. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked. pschemp | talk 01:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This section was recently deleted and spammed by, who clearly is identical to Woodking24. Please, block this IP. --Wasell 04:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * IP blocked and sites added to m:Spam blacklist Nacon kantari  04:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Spambot is back (somewhat)
Ok, latest spam attack on my userpsace is User talk:Cool cat/archive/2005/w/index.php. Please sort it out. :) For previous discussion on the matter see:
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive138
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive139

-- Cat out 23:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Page deleted and IP bloked for 24 hours.--Doc 23:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Cat out 23:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * User talk:Cool Cat/Archive/2005/wiki/Discussion/ too. -- Cat out 00:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * These IPs should really be blocked for a minimum of 1 month; most are likely zombies or open proxies. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I started a Spambot tracker.
 * From what I understand this bot isnt just targeting my userspace. Unfortunately, I can't view deleted pages. So, I welcome compiling of a list of similar activity elsewhere on that page.
 * I just dont want to start a new thread explaining the issue since the bot doesnt seem to be about to go away.
 * -- Cat out 00:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You can find most of the spam that slipped through the cracks using Google, an example would be. Though we really need to equip our antivandalism bots to take care of these things. MER-C 03:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

More spam:. MER-C 04:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * May I suggest reporting spam IPs to WP:OP encase they are proxies or compromised. Thanks.-- Andeh 20:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Desperately Need help on blanking and POV editing of Tamilnet by User:snowolfd4
I have been making some edits to Tamilnet which have been repeatedly reverted with POV and propaganda from the ministry of Defence, Sri Lanka without any qualifications of the text by user User:Snowolfd4. I have added a list of justifications for my changes. But this user has never bothered to answer them and gone ahead given very terse statements for his reverts. This is pretty much vandalism. I have in turn added citations from a reputable source, namely a journal article on Tamilnet.com by Whitaker, Mark P. "Tamilnet.com: Some Reflections on Popular Anthropology, Nationalism, and the Internet" Anthropological Quarterly - Volume 77, Number 3, Summer 2004, pp. 469-498 George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research. He has reverted my citations claiming in effect that this peer-reviewed scholarly journal article is the following:

''According to Official WP policy ''Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference.''

He has claimed pretty much all the sources, including the journal article not to be a reliable source, with very very dubious edit summaries. I desperately need administrator intervention on this. This is getting to be very frustrating when a user claims that a peer-reviewed scholarly journal article is an unreliable source and then goes ahead and blanks legitimate cited contents. He has already been blocked for edit warring and has a history of POV pushing and blanking. Elalan 04:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Blanking out verifiable info is def'ly vandalism and this needs to be warned clearly. This is an attempt by user Snowolf to show all articles showing the other side of an issue as derogatory or false. This is a much serious concern for Wiki's 5 pillars. Pls intervene. Thanks Sudharsansn 19:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Infact my talk page is being vandalized here Pls help. Thanks Sudharsansn 19:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Incivility complaint re: MONGO
Dispute resolution: This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process.
 * This is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If you came here to complain about the actions of a user or administrator, or if your problem is a content issue and does not need the attention of people with administrator access, then please follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include: mediation, requests for comment, and as a last resort requests for arbitration.

The following is a discussion that has been archived. Do not modify it. -- Cyde Weys 23:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This concerns a discussion Mongo and I had been having on his talk page.

A few months ago, I had written an essay which, passing, included in a link to Encyclopedia Dramatica. As far as I know, the link is uncontroversial and doesn't in any way involve harassment. I'm not an ED editor or anything-- I only recently became aware of what a big drama ED actually is-- I myself just copied the link from Avoid weasel words because my essay was on a similar subject.

Today, Mongo deleted the link from the essay, citing a recent arbcom decision. Since that time, I have been engaged in a dispute with Mongo to either help ME understand why Wikipedia is better with that link deleted, or to help him understand why it isn't helpful to delete _all_ ED links, regardless of the linked to content. I want to stress, and I mean this sincerely, that I was genuinely trying to have an actual dialogue, truly open, and indeed eager, to understand how the deletion improves Wikipedia. At no time have I attempted to re-insert the link in question, nor do I have any intention to do so.

I post here not because of the deletion itself, but rather because of the extereme rudness Mongo has shown me in my sincere good-faith attempt to have this dialogue. If you look at the discussion, I haven't insulted him, I haven't been rude to him, I haven't slandered him-- I have sincerely been trying to understand his POV or convince him of mine. I sincerely expressed my frustration with the deletion, and honestly asked him to help me understand it. Mongo has responded with extreme rudeness, generaly dismissed my concerns, aggressively told me to "find a better use of my time... NOW.", and snidely remarked "I hope this isn't too frustrating for you". In his last response, he promised to block me if I continued the dialogue, and terminated the discussion by saying " NOW GET THE HELL OFF MY PAGE ABOUT THAT GODDAMN WEBSITE ."

Despite this behavior, I actually have alot to say in Mongo's defense. I'm only marginally familar with his on-going dispute with the ED webmasters, but it seems like he's had a very hard time of things and they've been very, very rude to him, even posting person information about him, and saying things that are so slanderous I won't even repeat them. I can only guess that his behavior towards me is based on the assumption that I am a sockpupppet of that person, and that my questions to him are actually bad-faith attempts at annoyance and harrassment. However, I assure you, I am not the webmaster of ED, I have no ties to him, I have a relatively-long editing history here at Wikipedia, amd I was trying to have a good-faith dialogue with a Wikipedia Admin who was enforcing his interpreation of policy on an essay I had written. Mongo's behavior to me is completely and utterly uncalled-for, and honestly, very upsetting.

It seems like Mongo has a long and outstanding edit history here, and has been a valuable member of the community-- and his attacks towards me are probably nothing but shell-shock-- the jitteriness of someone who has been attacked by others for too long, and has gotten very tired of it. That said, his behavior towards me _is_ inappropriate, and I would ask the Wikpedia community to help him understand that, and to understand that I, and more importantly, other users he might encounter in the future, are not necessarily trying to harass him when we ask questions of him, even if we are slow to understand his thinking, and even if we are persistent in our sincere inquiries.

I would explicitly ask that he not be blocked for his-- I don't know if that's even something that would be considered, but i'm quite convinced he's just suffering from "diminished capacity" caused by being under attack by persistent trolls,and that blocking would only aggravate the situation. I also am not informing him of this posting, per his request that I not post on his talk page anymore-- someone else can contact him regarding this discussion if such contact is appropriate.

--Alecmconroy 14:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I want to offer my support for MONGO, who has been targeted for months and continues to be 'pecked at' by vicious ED trolls. I know few people who would show as much restraint as MONGO if they were similarly targeted. While his comment was uncivil, his capacity is not 'diminished'. I'd leave the link off of your essay and leave MONGO alone. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, my comment stands...if the ED trolls don't stay off my talk page, I will block them. I made myself clear many many times on my talk page, but that wasn't good enough for Alecmconroy. No, he has to try and wikilawyer repeatedly the same stuff over and over like some kind of deranged parrot...it that isn't trolling I don't know what is...somebody block this guy for disruption for pete's sake.--MONGO 14:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you should bare in mind that the arbcom ruling on this matter says 'may be removed' not 'must be removed' or similar, so this users questions about whether the wholesale deletion of the links is necessary are indeed legitimate. You conistently refuse to actually discuss the matter simply referring the editor to the ruling and telling him to 'do something better with his time'. I would simply say that regardless of any history with other users, WP:AGF still applies and was ignored here with a new user with a legitimate question.
 * On the other hand, Alecmconroy did persist a little too much over the issue as it was obvious an answer, which didn't simply point to the arbcom ruling, was not going to appear. This gives the impression of trolling.
 * So, I would say that both editors are in the wrong here, Mongo for not assuming good faith and incivility and Alecmconry for not just letting it drop. I don't think it really needs to go any further than this either, as both users should learn from this.-Localzuk(talk) 14:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * All MONGO needed to do was state "The matter is closed, take any further questions to ArbCom". The statement made was way out of line. I commented on his talk page as follows:

''MONGO, certainly you're aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, specifically "Profanity directed against another contributor". Whether his actions constitute harrassment doesn't excuse a like reply. You might want to reconsider the tone of your above statement. ''

Which he proceded to remove without comment, a fairly WP:UNCIVIL edit per Help:Talk_page. While Alecmconroy might have been overly persistent, such a comment to him, and a removal of what amounts to a Npa2 warning, only strengthens the idea that MONGO is acting in an uncivil manner.

Just as I submitted this for preview, MONGO again removed my warning and posted on my talk page the following: The discussion does not involve you and you are trying to antagonize me...so here is your warning from me, an administrator. I'm not quite certain how putting a npa2 warning on a user page is any sort of violation, so I don't appreciate his threat.  *Sparkhead  14:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He did exactly what you suggested and he was badgered beyond that. He said take it up with arbcom 2 more times after that.  After that, I would argue further debate is severe trolling by the complainant.  --Tbeatty 14:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, my suggestion was that's all he should do (and no more). I'd agree with your argument, but that still does not excuse profanity and a personal attack.  Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.  I stated such in more technical terms on his talk page and he deleted it as me "antagonizing him".   *Sparkhead  15:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

MONGO is absolutely in the right. If he believes it is productive to find and delete all references to ED he may do so according to the arbcom ruling. He should not be badgered indefinitely by persons who disagree with an Arbcom ruling. In fact, anyone who reverts those deletions is subject to immediate block/ban (after being informed about the Arbcom ruling). To argue that they "may" be removed does not grant authority for MONGO to delete them all is specious. There are no rules about what priority an editor may place on any particular edit. If MONGO believes that removing ED is his highest priority, then he may do so. --Tbeatty 14:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course MONGO is absolutely in the right regarding the deletion actions. I even agreed with him on his talk page.  However he is absolutely in the wrong in spewing profanity at another editor, as well as removing a comment that is essence a npa warning.  *Sparkhead  14:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Enough of this. Repeated trolling needs blocked - wikilawyering be damned. I don't think MONGO should have to deal with this, or block these lusers himself. I'm now going to watchlist his page - and I call on other uninvolved admins to do likewise. Let's see for ourselves what is happeing and take the appropriate action.--Doc 14:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Doc glasgow, do not use threats such as that. I am a long standing editor on this site and do not like being referred to as a 'luser'. This is a simple case of incivility that has blown all out of proportion. Removing npa warnings is a bad thing, especially by an admin who should know better - I do not really care about the removal of the link, just the incivility and, now, removal of warnings.-Localzuk(talk) 14:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You need to examine the full conversation between myself and Alecmconroy clearly shows that he was persistant in asking and trying to wikilawyer about the arbcom ruling. I in fact deleted less than 20 links of a possible 200 I could or you could remove. Sparkhead is not a "neutral" party as he is unhappy that I protected a deleted article from being recreated  and did not like what the concensus was on the section heading of another article he was arguing with me and other editors on recently,  so he is just trying to stir the pot. If you are unaware of the full story, stay out of the firing line.--MONGO 15:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would concur that both users have some reason to be unhappy, but after a reading of the conversation on multiple pages I would admonish Alecmconroy to drop this contest to put that ED link in. Arbcom says that link can and (more important) should be removed at discretion. If he ignores the import of the arbcom ruling (5-0), he's pushing a losing agenda. MONGO has indeed been through a lot recently, but Arbcom backs him 100% (5-0) on his actions. Good for Arbcom (they've endorsed his prior actions completely, which says "Good for MONGO"). Someone has to stand watch at this gate, and MONGO has demonstrated vastly more patience than I might, and certainly more patience than Alexmconroy (though Alex's original message here has all the appropriate caveats, to his credit). Alex should understand that linking to ED will always be controversial, and stop doing it. MONGO has an obligation to himself and others to make his intention to delete such links clear on the ED talk page, and IMHO he should stop blanking valid comments from his talk page (they call that vandalism, even for testy admins). And I'd like to buy MONGO a beer; he's my new hero. BusterD 15:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was on your talk page for the protection thread, saw this, and completely agreed with you on this topic and defended your actions, but when I pointed out you violated npa you deleted my commentary. Profanity is clearly out of line, and warning blanking is often considered so. Not your deletion of ED links.  *Sparkhead  15:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree that profanity is 'out of line' (although I rarely employ it myself). Calling someone a profane name, for example, is out of line because it's name calling, not profanity. Profanity is a part of language and isn't bannable unto itself (but it can be uncivil). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Interpret as you will, WP:NPA: "Profanity directed against another contributor." Seems clear he was directly addressing another contributor with profanity.   *Sparkhead  15:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to me. If he called the user a 'shithead', that would be clear. If he called the user a 'fucking troll', that would be less clear (but still a personal attack). But he said 'get the hell off my page' and 'goddamn website', which, while uncivil, isn't a personal attack. I'll repeat what numerous users have told you (but which you seem to ignore) - that your persistence here is not speaking well of your ability to concentrate on content rather than contributors. Such conduct can be seen as harassment and trolling, and to demonstrate that you are not trolling I strongly urge you to change your focus to another topic besides MONGO and ED. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What's more incivil, make it clear as a bell, after trying repeatedly, that my answers were going to be the same, or use the mighty Banhammer on him. He got off easy.--MONGO 16:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me state this quite clearly, here, and anywhere else where I need to state it. If I find any ED links or edits, I will delete them, explain to the person who put them there why, and, if they are restored, I will block the editor. The arbcom ruling is clear. Now, get off Mongo's page and leave him alone, or you will be indef. blocked as a troll and disruptor. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see, , . User has had multiple warnings. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've warned him on both his Talk page and the RfAr page. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Best bet is to remove or unlink everything in Special:Linksearch/*.encyclopediadramatica.com, then ask for blackilsting at Meta. This is what was done with YTMND. Guy 20:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to the complaints that I "harassed", "badgered" or "wikilawyered", let me just explain my point of view. An admin comes to a page I'm on, deletes a link, and tells me no to add it back.  I, or any user, am going to want to know why that has to happen, and ideally, I'd like to actually understand how wikpedia is better because of that rule. And "because arbcom said so" doesn't cut it.  That explaination is certainly sufficent to persuade me not to break the rule-- I haven't disobeyed it, no will I.  But that doesn't quench my desire to understand why that link was bad, just because of   an unrelated dispute between Mongo and the domains's owner.  I'm sorry i was persistent in my inquiries, but I legitimately don't understand why anyone wanted that particular link gone, and I don't guess I'm going to understand.


 * That's fine. Take the link--- it was a dumb little humor link anyway.  Don't explain to me why you want the link gone-- just point to the law that allows you to remove it.  okay.  But please-- don't get mad at ME for even asking the question!  Don't call me a harasser or a badgerer (or god forbid a lawyer). ya know?


 * Anyway, I'm dropping this, as I've been strongly encouraged to do. I question the wisdom of deleting all links based not on the linked-to-content, but based just on the domain name.  I question the wisdom of being so mean to people who question you.  But that will be up to someone else to convince people of those things-- I'm politely exiting the whole mess, grumbling as I do so that I sorta got a raw deal in the whole matter.
 * --Alecmconroy 21:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Waa! Waa! Censorship! Anyone else find it ironic that the same people who cry censorship about no ED on Wikipedia are also really quick to cite WP:CIVIL? Danny Lilithborne 21:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The deeper irony is the lack of civility from those looking to have the supposedly uncivil links removed, but whatever. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The even-deeper irony is that we have to bring up this exhausted topic again and again without changing the status quo, but only to insult (and hypocritically accuse of incivility) each other and end up in another WP:RFAr case, hence causing a recurring spectacle/scandal. --210physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 21:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The wikilawyering is disturbing, making me sincerely doubt that the purpose of this link was in good faith. -- Samir धर्म 23:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Samir, I promise you, it was in good faith. I've only added the link once, way back in july, when I copied it from the policy page Avoid weasel words along with other text that was on the page at that time.  I had no way of knowing what a huge bru-ha-ha ED was (if indeed it even was such a big deal back then).  I haven't added a single ED link since that time, and I'm not gonna.  It completely was good-faith, as has all my behavior since then.  Really.
 * I mean, the link itself isn't that big of a deal.  I mean-- here's an easy way out-- I notice that linked-to-page (which I won't post here) has since added a very offensive and disgusting pornographic image which wasn't there when I first visited that page.  So, right there is a reason we shouldn't link to that page--it's a really gross image.   I completely understand that kind of reasoning.
 * I just don't get why Mongo, or others, want to delete links to stuff just based on who's hosting it. To make light of what I can see is a tense situation-- I really hate AOL (all those stupid AOL cds cloggin up my mailbox)--  but I wouldn't delete  links to un-objectionable pages just cause hosted on AOL servers.   Anyway-- I don't mean to redebate the issue-- Wikipedia seems to have spoken on this issue through their elected representatives, so that's a done deal.
 * I'm just saying-- if you see bad faith in my actions, you're wrong. Dead wrong.  I never even heard of Mongo two days ago, I wasn't trying to harass him, I wasn't trying to be rude, I was sincerely just trying to have a discussion.  In doing so, I seem to inadvertantly stumbled into a landmine, and since then have been insulted, cussed at, threatened with blocks,  likened to a cry-baby, and in general, seen as whole side of Wikipedia that I didn't know existed.  And I'm telling you-- I don't deserve it, I wasn't trying to be difficult or annoying or anything like that.  If you see bad faith, hear me looking you square in the eye and promising you-- I wasn't trying to harass, annoy, or otherwise.  Seriously.  Word of honor.
 * So, next time-- everyone just be a little more willing to accept that someone might be acting in good faith, and a little slower to hit incivility. For my part, I apologize that I didn't pick up earlier on Mongo's wikistress in the discussion on his talk page--  if I had known earlier what a hot-button topic this ED thing is, I would have taken extra care to distance myself from that group of people, to reiterate to Mongo my regret at what they've done to him, and to be extra clear that my concerns and questions about the deletions does not in any way imply that I condone the rude way he's been treated by those people.
 * --Alecmconroy 00:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * --Alecmconroy 00:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we maybe stop the incessant "wikilawyering" comments? There's legitimate criticism of how Arbcom handled the linking issue, and the fact that some people are indeed going overboard in enforcement isn't much better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a finding of excessive zeal in the arbcom case, and it appears that Mongo took the "No action is taken..." response as a license to go back to behaving rudely, when it really should have been taken as a clear warning that there is a line in the sand. This seems to be to be a serious mistake, from MONGO removing the ED links himself, to escalating to highly rude responses when people ask why. Another sad day. Georgewilliamherbert 23:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:SafeLibraries.org's inappropriate username
Wikipedia usernames are not intended as vehicles for linkspam. However, every edit that User:SafeLibraries.org makes inserts another link to http://www.SafeLibraries.org into Wikipedia. As this user now has 1099 edits, he has now inserted at least 1099 spam links into the edit history of various pages. This continued linkspamming is disruptive. Username recognizes this problem, and states that "Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies, groups, or include the URL of a particular website are discouraged and may be blocked."User:SafeLibraries.org was asked to change his username on July 31. So far, he has stated on two occasions that he intends to do so, but has most recently implied that he will not change his username. However, no user acquires the right to an inappropriate username by long use, provided that the username was inappropriate when it was created. Heavy use of inappropriate usernames simply represents a greater injury to Wikipedia than inappropriate usernames which are indefinitely blocked on sight. Therefore, I suggest that User:SafeLibraries.org be blocked indefinitely. John254 14:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Usernameblocked. -- Avi 14:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would prefer you didn't block yet. (See the block log, the messages to the user, ect) The user seems to understand now why the username needs to be changed, and seems willing to do so. If not, I can always reblock. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  14:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh... And so this makes the linkspamming OK? Just trying to understand. BusterD 15:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I understand the "link spamming" is that every time the account edits it leaves the URL in the page history. However, these pages aren't even counted as links by search engines (only pages with /wiki/ in the URL are cached by search engines). Of course, a username change would change the history pages anyway, so... I was in the middle of discussion with this user, and he said he would change his username, and I would assume that is in good faith. Also, I left a note to John explaining what I did, but he decided not to leave me a message, as I requested he do if he had a problem, but instead made a report here. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  15:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Since users can edit their talk pages even while blocked, User:SafeLibraries.org can specify a new username on his talk page. A bureaucrat can then change his username and unblock him.  Until his username is changed, however, there is no need to continue to allow him to edit. John254 15:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As John said. Also, BusterD, the name is inappropriate regardless of "spamming". See Username. Once the user posts a request for a name change on User talk:SafeLibraries.org, any admin will gladly unblock him so that he may post on Changing username. -- Avi 16:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Does he need to post a request on Changing username personally? If a request is posted to Changing username on his behalf, with a link to the diff from his talk page as evidence that he is requesting that his username be changed, I believe that the bureaucrats would act on it. John254 16:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I'm a sysop, not a b'crat, so I'm not 100% sure. We can always try [[image:smile.gif]]. -- Avi 16:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Site seems like self-promotion, and behavior appears unreliable. But if the user name change is agreed, problem looks solved. Curious: how did this get to 1100 edits before blockage? Was no time frame agreed upon in first contact? This seems open and shut to an outsider. Thanks again–I'm trying to decode what is done on these pages. High-entry level of knowledge. Understand most but need to read more. BusterD 16:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There are tens of thousands of wiki editors, some things are bound to slip through the cracks for a while. Thankfully, the majority of editors and sysops have wiki's best interests at heart so it is a pretty robust self-correcting environment. Thanks again! [[image:smile.gif]] -- Avi 16:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorse block. He was already given the opportunity to change his username multiple times; if he wants to continue editing now, he should get a new account. -- Cyde Weys 20:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sandover, Senate vote, and habeas corpus
User:Sandover has started adding the following paragraph to the biographies of a number of Senators:

On September 28, 2006, [senator X] voted (with a Republican majority) to suspend habeas corpus provisions for anyone deemed by the Executive Branch an "unlawful combatant", barring them from challenging their detentions in court. X's vote gave a retroactive, nine-year immunity to U.S. officials who authorized, ordered, or committed acts of torture and abuse, permitting the use of statements obtained through torture to be used in military tribunals so long as the abuse took place by December 30, 2005. X's vote authorized the President to establish permissible interrogation techniques and to "interpret the meaning and application" of international Geneva Convention standards, so long as the coercion fell short of "serious" bodily or psychological injury. The bill became law on October 17, 2006.

For some individuals, he's actually created whole sections to discuss this. So far he's added it to the bios of Joe Lieberman, Sam Brownback, Chuck Hagel, Mary Landrieu, Susan Collins, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey_Graham, Gordon Smith, Pat_Roberts, and others. Aside from the fact that the wording is prejudicial and not supported by the sources, it seems to me that this kind of boilerplate insertion is spamming for political purposes, and a violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Will he insert this paragraph into the bios of every single senator who voted for this? Is this particular vote of each senator notable in some way? Have reliable sources actually commented on these specific votes of these specific individuals?

Not only is Sandover adding the material to articles, but he is also reverting anyone who removes it. I suggest that this behavior is disruptive, and that Sandover should stop doing this. If he wants to list every senator who voted for the bill, he should do so in the article on the bill. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

He continues to add it to articles, for example Olympia Snowe. He's now inventing his own reasons as to why each specific vote is "notable" in some way; clearly a case of original research. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to mention he appears to be adding any dispariging news links to the articles besides just this. --InShaneee 17:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Password Request Bug
Hopefully, this means the password request throttle has been implememnted, but I'm not very familiar with bugzilla, so maybe someone else could take a look? 
 * I don't know Wikipedia release process well, but all that necessarily means is that there's been a change written and accepted by the MediaWiki maintainers. Actually getting that into the "live" copy which runs Wikipedia may take a little longer. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks active to me . Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  19:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool. Actually blocked users are blocked from making password requests now rather than a limit being set on how many can be made per day, but whatever works is fine with me. pschemp | talk 20:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Behavior of User:Iwazaki in the Velupillai Prabhakaran page
is on a vandal spree and also a personal attack campaign. With scant respect for fellow editors, this user is continuing to add content to Wiki not complying to NPOV, Verifiabiliy, Civility or simply anything else apart from the fundamental policy of 'anyone can edit anything' policy of Wiki. The user has also been issued a final warning for Civility but continues his spree of personal attacks and diplomatic vandalism. Check this Iwazaki Talk page Infact he questions the very claim of Civility to the admins who have issued warnings to him in the same page as above!!

To add to this, the user is quoting incidents from the newspapers that he has read someday. sometime ago!! Here Iwazaki has framed up two entire sections of his own, literally without any citation at all refer here. The citations he has pointed to refer to a newspaper article which he has read sometime ago and is not a piece of evidence which can be verified by everybody who would be reading that article. It is something like 'I-saw-that-in-news-once' kind of a link. It is a blank newspaper name link which isn't a hyperlink or anything at all. Check the talk page for his spurious justifications and more personal attacks He is also reverting it to his own versions also making sure he isn't under the 3R rule.

For your convenience, I have created a list of a number of such attacks from the report concerned, and listed each as linked to the diff from which they were copied...
 * "written by someone with a kindergarten level knowledge",
 * "Speak for your self, all my comments here are in reply to what others asked..Whether they are related or not, i normally wont disappoint anyone who asks questions from me.A habbit which comes from my fathers side!!" - He is talking about his upbringing on a Wikipedia Talk page.
 * "I bet your self had a rough time ,esp about the copy-righted pictures..So before advising and playing with sarcasm why dont you look after your self ?? i mean afterall u needed advice" - This is really too much.
 * "Since you have done such a poor job in this article,and its not surprising considering your pre-school level knoweldge of hostory and amazing logic !! And this kid is here to make things better."
 * "if you have problem with that, please purchase the book and read it."
 * "it would be really nice if you work on your reading comprehension skills..All my points remain valid and u only have one kindergrten level article to back up what ever you claims",
 * "i mean afterall u needed advice from a probably another pro-srilankan to grasp the idea of copyright policies here in wikipedia..",
 * "i have an enormous respect to wiki and its editors..But like in every society ,there are a few here joking around..And for them i have no respect..Since i take my history very seriously, i dont want kids to come here and screw things up.kids should grasp more knowledge before coming here.",
 * "didnt i tell you to speak for your self ?? what you have written here is not only in low quality ,but lack truth too.some of your sources are highly ambiguous, and do not qualified to be in the article.And thats what this kid do here, pointing out your "hypothesis" to save the standards of wikipedia..You have shown here so many things, lack of "reading conprehension skills", "kidergarten level logic" , "lack of knowledge in srilankan crisis" and most importantly "lack of(or NO) knowledge in our history"..So shouldnt you think ,better to get some history lessons in school ,before even coming here to edits ??",
 * "YOU dont need to take a day-nap to see that truth..",
 * "and unlike some i dont have any hidden agendas.I honor my state, SLA or anyother thing, with a reason..And condemned them too, with reason..Since you have done such a poor job in this article,and its not surprising considering your pre-school level knoweldge of hostory and amazing logic !!".


 * ...Please be advised that this is not a complete list and has been jointly compiled by User:Crimsone.

This seems to be going on for almost a month inspite of several friendly suggestions and also Admin warnings. This is a serious problem in that page and quite naturally it is spreading to other pages too. This user doesn't like Wiki policies as per some of his replies to Admin warnings and friendly suggestions by fellow editors and I really don't know what he is upto after his aforesaid statements which are listed. Quite understandeably all his actions are outside Wiki's 5 pillars!! Kindly help. Thanks Sudharsansn 19:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Again (didn't notice this earlier) - there is a world of difference between "jointly compiled byCrimsone" and "includes a list compiled by Crimsone used to show the user which edits he had recieved a final warning for and why". Please be more accurate in your language when describing such things, as your statement implies my taking of sides in this latest report, which is most certainly not the case. I do not wish to be drawn into a content dispute that I know little about, nor an ongoing incivility dispute between two editors I have no real connection with. All I have done is given a list of comments to the user that made them in explanation of a final warning given by an admin in response to a WP:PAIN report. Many thanks --Crimsone 21:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, pls do pardon my ignorance in editing this list. No offense meant, I just felt the urgent need for admin intervention in this issue. I had only appended to this list as I had done there. If there is anything I need to do with regd to the list here, do let me know. Pardon me for my ignorance and the copy-paste. :-) Thanks Sudharsansn 23:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Jgp blocked
I have blocked User:Jgp indefinitely for restoring the ED link to SchmuckyTheCat's User page. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Before he was blocked by Zoe, I asked Jgp to revert the page back and he curtly refused. While I'm disappointed that this indef block was necessary, his conduct was completely indefensible. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts he'll be back regardless, but indefinite blocks seem more than a bit harsh. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, an indef block looks like overkill to me. User:Jgp doesn't look like a troll or someone who has never done anything useful for the encyclopedia. --Conti|&#9993; 21:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Any user who has made it clear that they will not abide by arbcom decisions has no business being here. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I give you a list of folks to indefinitely block, then? Back to reality, though, he has no prior block history and a legitimate complaint, and while profane defiance isn't the way to change things, an indefinite block seems completely out of control given his history and the circumstances. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * An indefblock for an editor in good standing is extremely out of line. It appears he only did this restoration of a link once and now he's indefblocked and has quit the project because of the indefblock.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He is indef blocked, not permanently blocked. If he announces that he will abide by the ruling, instead of calling it "fucking stupid", he can be unblocked.  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The decision is "fucking stupid," and he's entitled to that opinion, as is anyone else who holds it. If he continues to re-add the link despite warnings and this block, then feel free to extend the block further.  To indefinitely block on the first offense with no prior issues whatsoever is completely absurd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you read User:RyanFreisling's comments above? He was asked to remove the link, and he refused.  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And RyanFreisling has about as much cache in such a discussion as I do. Please read my point again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

An indef block does not mean permament. If the user takes a break (no socks), makes it clear that he understand what he did wrong, asks for a second chance in proper place, then there is a pretty good chance he will be given one. Best to let a bit of time to pass, though. --FloNight 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. No one has to implement arbcom decisions, but no one gets to interfere with those who are. Tom Harrison Talk 21:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm getting very disappointed with the actions of various admins regarding their crusade / witchhunt against ED, which, with the extreme zeal by which it is pursued and the need to demonize and marginalize all opposition to the policy, is starting to take on a resemblance to the War on Drugs. *Dan T.* 00:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Jgp stated "if I'm unblocked, I won't bother re-adding the links", so that should be enough to unblock him, right? --Conti|&#9993; 00:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would think so, with the proviso that a significant block is re-enstated if he were to knowingly go against an ArbCom decision in the future. -- Avi 01:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If he doesn't abide by the arbcom ruling and knowing adds links to the website in question, he can and will be blocked, as can any editor who knowingly violates the arbcom ruling. It's that simple. That the block is permanent is another matter, but wheel warring over a block applied that is backed by an arbcom decision would be a bad idea.--MONGO 05:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The exact arbcom wording is:

Enforcement by block 1) Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users. All blocks to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO.


 * Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

An indefinite block is clearly a strong penalty. A link to the ED homepage is not a link to material that harrasses others. Indefinite is not "appropriate" for a mere link to the ED homepage, though it's clearly compliant with the decision to do a more limited block.

I strongly support not linking to ED and the arbcom decision, and an appropriate block on those who violate it, but Arbcom sent two messages over this: one, don't abuse WP admins, and two, don't be abusive in return. If Arbcom had meant inserting any link to be indef-blockable they would have said so. And the block here has not been listed as the arbcom decision requires.

Zoe, please follow the rules. Georgewilliamherbert 05:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * She did follow the rules...what rule did she violate? I see nothing to indicate that she violated anything.--MONGO 05:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) No listing at the Log.
 * 2) An indefinite block is a strong penalty, which may only be applied to those linking to or importing material which harrasses other users. A link to the ED homepage, which currently (without following any links) only has one Wikipedia reference on it, and nothing related to any WP editors as far as I see, is not harrassing other WP users.
 * 2a) Jgp is not a naive user, knew what he/she was doing, and the second sentence does not apply.
 * 2b) Jgp did insert a link and per Arbcom may be blocked for an appropriate period of time.
 * 2c) In no prior arbcom decision has a single act of defiant disagreement with an Arbcom decision by a non-party been justification for an indefinite block. Arbcom decisions have been treated like any other normal policy, and violations thereof as for any other policy.
 * 2d) One time ordinary wilful violation of WP policy is normally appropriately and consistently handled by 24-48 hr blocks and appropriate warnings.
 * 2e) WP blocks are, by policy, preventive rather than punitive. Given a single wilful violation, other than a catastrophic attack on someone or on WP, an indef block is punitive.
 * As I said: Jgp shouldn't have done this and "a" block is within policy. An indef block is not, and should be overturned by Zoe, or should rightfully be overturned by another admin after 24 hrs or so if she won't.  This would not be wheel-warring - it's enforcing the Arbcom decision as written.
 * Acting too harshly and arbitrarily lends credence to WP critics. Arbcom carefully phrased its decision.  This was not a carefully phrased or carefully thought out response.  Georgewilliamherbert 07:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Baloney...comments in the edit summary he made clearly indicated he knew what the ruling was and he clearly called another editors attempts to enforce the arbcom ruling as vandalism. His comments on his own talk page initially indicated he was both hostile and unremorseful for readding the link. The appropriate period of time as far as Zoe was concerned is indefinite...and that is not the same thing as permanent per se. You have virtually zero experience dealing with trolls, no experience administering blocks and no experience explaining why you deleted an article, so your commentary is based on a lack of experience. Zoe has been around for a long time, and I can find zero fault in what she did, especially with the remedy that was unanimously selected by the arbtrators that voted on the arbcom case.--MONGO 11:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have been dealing with Internet Trolls since 1987. My relatively short experience with WP is not indicative of a lack of experience administering moderated internet discussions.  Please believe me that I would not be bringing these issues up without having plenty of background (in other internet media) with the general problems.  Georgewilliamherbert 18:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your labelling of a good-standing editor who has never been blocked prior as a "troll" is ridiculous and uncivil. I do not see where "inexperience" with "trolls" comes into play here. George is telling it as it should be. – Chacor 11:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Mongo, people who disagree with a) arbcom, b) admins, and/or c) you are not necessarily trolls. There's nothing to indicate he is or otherwise.  Please stop attacking people. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You can read I hope...I did not call Jpg a troll...I told Georgewilliamherbert that he has no experience dealing with trolls as part of the discussion that he has no admin experience and is hardly in a position to render as good a judgement as someone who has been an admin as long as Zoe has. Please read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.--MONGO 11:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, can everyone just cool it? Although technically correct, MONGO, think about when you were an aspiring user, and how you would have felt if some criticized your position, and it's implications on your ability to render as good a judgement as some other users. Wikipedia aspires all users to give their input, and the community can decide whether someone's points are as important/knowledgable as others. It's similar to the way the B'crats give weighting to SPA's in RFA. Jeff and Chacor, please refrain from pestering other users - assuming good faith, you misread his comment, however criticising MONGO's opinion of certain editors, whether they are valid or not, only leads to more conflict. Let's aviod making this end up somewhere we all don't want it to. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Back to the point: Jgp has said that he won't reinsert the link anymore, so does anyone still disagree with me unblocking him? He, like anyone else, can of course be reblocked when the links get added back again. --Conti|&#9993; 15:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked him based on the link you provided. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Conti|&#9993; 16:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Jgp is saying that he is autoblocked. I can't find any outstanding autoblocks, and the autoblock search tool isn't working. Can anybody help? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Leoboy725
I believe that this account qualifies for blocking as a vandalism-only account. His most recent edits include insertion of photographs of people that he uploaded into the prostitution and prude articles in an evident effort to defame the people depicted. My report on WP:AIV was removed by a user who is not an administrator because User:Leoboy725 has received "no warnings". However, Vandalism does not actually require that users be warned prior to being blocked for vandalism. Furthermore, users are commonly blocked without warning for extreme cases of vandalism, such as inserting the photograph of a person into the prostitution article for the purpose of defamation. John254 21:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Zoe warned him, and I speedily deleted the images he uploaded as vandalism. --Core des at 21:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Trouble on the Andy Stephenson DRV
The deletion review on Andy Stephenson is starting to turn into the conspiracycruft circus that the AfD was. It might need a few other admins to help keep it under control. --Core des at 21:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And Tbeatty keeps deleting and editing other peoples contributions. I added this:


 * Comment  :Comments from the deletionist hit squad, suggesting malfeasance:
 * 04:22, 5 October 2006 Aaron (Talk | contribs) (noting no more AfDs)


 * 04:21, 5 October 2006 Aaron (Talk | contribs) (all gone! now what will we do for fun?)
 * Hit Squad History What an outrageous misuse of the AfD process! Deleting articles 'for fun'.  NBGPWS 05:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And he deleted it. NBGPWS 06:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Hit Squad History" is a clear WP:NPA violation. You'd be better off not reinserting it.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Oyo321
I'd like to request another admin to review whether the edits today of constituted improper personal attacks. (I believe they do, but I think an uninvolved admin should review the situation.) Further, if we have an admin who can read Korean, please check to see if the Korean writing the user has been writing on some talk pages constitute personal attacks, since I have no way to check those. --Nlu (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A request for assistance over on WP:RD/LANG will probably find you a Korean speaker fairly quickly. There's no reason he/she has to be an admin as long as he/she can report back here on what they read. --Aaron 22:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A few more eyes are needed...
The situation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tree of Life diff is really getting over the top. User:pschemp got involved as an unimplicated admin, but an RFARB took place almost immediately, and it's not fair to ask her to wade in further.

Note that User:Brya is banned, and his/her comments on his/her own talk page have been copied into the wikiproject talk space, where he/she cannot respond. The previous discussions had been archived, now brought back and added to. A cool-off period seems in order, and bringing in some cool heads and objective pairs of eyes would be a great help there. -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 22:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * KPBotnay has been asked not to put such comments on the talk page of the project but to use dispute resolution instead. The comments were reverted and no longer exist on the page. As long as he doesn't re-insert, there's nothing more to deal with. pschemp | talk 04:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Image question
was uploaded and inserted into the prostitution article as "A typical North American whore."

It has GFDL-self, which appears to invalidate WP:SPEEDY criteria. How should this image be processed? Gotyear 23:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The image was being used solely for vandalism. Deleted per CSD G3. --Slowking Man 23:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Per WP:IFD I would say list it there as UE (Unencyclopædic) and OR (Orphaned). But if it was just being used for vandalism, a CSD:G3 would work even better. -- Avi 23:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah! I was looking solely at the image criteria. Thanks both! Gotyear 23:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:StalinsLoveChild
First of all, Hello to you all. Straight to business. I've had a minor tiff with, and although I admit that I am at fault (and will accept any comments on my conduct), I've a bit worried through his comments on my talk page and on his own user and talk pages. It looks like he could be evading a previous indefblock, although i'm not entrely sure how to go about finding this out or if it's even a problem. Most worrying is his final message on my talk page - "I have had numerous past accounts on Wikipedia, which usually get shut down due to the ignorance of people like you not knowing what's best" - combined with his User page, stating that "If my userpage gets deleted AGAIN I will be extremely angry - and this time, you SHALL FEEL MY WRATH. ". Is this a problem? I don't profess to know much about indefblock polciies, and if they can create another account afterwards to evade the block? it doesn't look like he's learned his lesson, regardless. Here's to a quick reply, HawkerTyphoon 23:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well its a big issue, you can file for Checkuser but there is always the issue that while they had previousa ccounts they did not actually get indef blocked and simply left the account to avoid stigma, arguements, harrassment etc. You can file a check user WP:RFCU, however you need to present evidence that they did something wrong, not simly that they had past accounts. You also, I believe need to provide a name to check against, so if you do not know who you want to accuse of being his past account there is not much that can be done. The real issue is finding out if they actually got banned before or simpyl left the accounts. --NuclearZer0 12:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for info, I'll bear it in mind, but I don't think I'll take it any further. I was just intrigued as to the rules regarding this. Thanks for clearing it up, though! HawkerTyphoon 16:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never been indefinitely blocked, and that's fact. This HawkerTyphoon dude has a vendetta against me for some reason - read his comments on my talkpage yourself, he has breached numerous rules, only I'm not so petty as to report them. If you can find ANY instance of me breaching ANY of Wikipedia's rules, I should like to know. StalinsLoveChild 15:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I just blocked this editor indefinitely for trolling and harassment, which is just about all he's done since posting here. Have a look at this particularly fine edit in case you missed it:  .  Antandrus  (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Usernameblockable too. ~crazytales56297 O rly? Ya rly! 22:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This user has now asked to be unblocked, and I've been asked to explain my reasons for blocking. SLC is clearly a trolling account.  Most of the mainspace edits are minor grammatical tweaks which change nothing, null edits (adding or removing a space), or vandalism/trolling (, or especially  -- make sure you read all the way to the bottom).  After establishing a mainspace presence, he proceeds to troll, and every single user talk edit is a nasty one indeed.  After Hawker's apology -- he hadn't really done anything so bad -- SLC began the harassment campaign, targeting Hawker's own picture.  Look at his last edit  -- this is harassment, and has no value towards our goal, which is building an encyclopedia.


 * When we face users like this, we need to ask two questions: 1) is this person here to help us build an encyclopedia?  2) if not, is this person actively interfering with those of us who are?  When the answers are no and yes, respectively, I helieve it is our duty as administrators to show these people the door, with as little drama as possible.


 * If no one else declines the unblock request, I'll go and do it myself, but I think it's better if someone other than the blocking admin does it. Thanks, Antandrus  (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I too looked at the user's contributions history. Another admin has just declined the unblock request, or I would certainly have done so myself.  I agree with Antandrus' block.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 15:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to throw in another sixpence, this picture of me is rather, well, petty. An interesting distraction from my daily routine though it was, I didn' really agree with it. I will admit that I did insult him in my edit summary after he mistakenly added a link I had removed. He then left a message (visible on my talk page), which I didn't take kindly to. I responded thusly, which I admit was overly snappy. I then left the following message on his TP: "I removed the Geocities site, I didn't add it, and I don't need to be talked to like a piece of shit. Read WP:CIVIL, and double check your edits before you start acting yourself up as someone who knows what they're doing". I was not impressed, as you can see. But afterwards there was a period of reverting my edits, and of course placing a wronglicense tag on a picture of me, on the assertion that because I was in the picutre, I couldn't have taken it. In short, I am naughty, but he is contributing very little. It's not my place to, but I agree with the block. HawkerTyphoon 18:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. I was also accused of breaking racism rules, on the grounds that "Racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs (yes, you have noticed my ancestry so you think you can belittle me in an article related to German history. This has not gone un-noticed)". Which made me chuckle a bit. See User talk:HawkerTyphoon for more. HawkerTyphoon 18:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:TTTTrrrrrrrrroooooooooolllllllllllllllll
I just came across, a user who has joined wikipedia a few weeks ago, but hasn't yet made any edits afaict. Is this username allowed per WP:USERNAME or not? A ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 00:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Since it spells troll, it falls under Names that give the impression that you intend to cause trouble, such as "Vandal", "Hacker", "Spammer", or "Troll". I believe it's not allowed. I'm reporting it to WP:AIV. Gotyear 00:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently, it was blocked quite a while ago: --210<font color="#0000C0">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 00:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Physicq210. My bad. I forgot to check the block log before reporting, which is always linked via User contributions. Fyi for anyone else who looks at this, it's under "User contributions" in big letters for every user. Talk, block log, and logs. Gotyear 00:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

John M. Walker, Jr.
Pursuant to WP:LIVING, I recommend careful monitoring of John M. Walker, Jr. Walker is a federal appeals judge in the United States (and distant relative of President Bush) who was recently involved in a traffic accident in which a pedestrian was killed. (For sound reasons I do not feel comfortable editing this article myself with respect to controversial matters.) Newyorkbrad 00:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I flagged it for attention and I'll try and keep an eye on it. -- Avi 01:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis socks to block
Please block JarlaxleArtemis (talk • e-mail • contribs • [ page moves ] • block user • [ block log ]) socks Grockenheimer (talk • e-mail • contribs • [ page moves ] • block user • [ block log ]) and Krimgrock (talk • e-mail • contribs • [ page moves ] • block user • [ block log ]). They've been posting spurious speedy deletion notices. See Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis for more info. —Psychonaut 01:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Nacon kantari  02:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User: BhaiSaab’s block and allegation of provoking anti-Semitism
I noticed that BhaiSaab was blocked for “a week” mainly due to User talk:Hkelkar. BhaiSaab has requested for unblock.

Here is the description of the reason for block: "You have been blocked for 1 week, mainly due to User talk:Hkelkar#Ahmadinejad. Since Hkelkar is a declared Jew, and Ahmadinejad is a well-known holocaust denier and virulently anti-Semitic, I can only presume that you are trying to provoke something from him. Add to that, a lot of edit-warring and general fighting."

BhaiSaab’s request for unblock is the following:

"Ahmadinejad is not anti-Semitic, so what's your problem? Does denying the holocaust automatically make one anti-Semitic and would this ever take place if he was anti-Semitic? Considering that Hkelkar goes sprouting opinions about Ahmadinejad all over the place, then you don't allow me do the same I would consider this a double standard. Another admin reviewed the same edits and I received no block, then you come in and look at the section on Hkelkars page without seeing what he did elsewhere, and decide to block me. Very irresponsible."

First of all, I should mention that I, for one, do not support Ahmadinejad in anyway. He can be very well, and in many cases rightly, criticized but fair is fair. I don’t agree that he is anti-semitic. Some may think he is but that’s a POV. As Bernard lewis writes anti-semtism has some marks:

He writes: "There is a well-worn platitude that we have all heard many times before: it is perfectly legitimate to criticize the actions and policies of the state of Israel or the doctrines of Zionism without necessarily being motivated by anti-Semitism. The fact that this has been repeated ad nauseam does not detract from its truth. Not only do I accept it, but I would even take it a step further with another formulation that may perhaps evoke surprise if not shock: it is perfectly possible to hate and even to persecute Jews without necessarily being anti-Semitic."

"Anti-Semitism is something quite different. It is marked by two special features. One of them is that Jews are judged by a standard different from that applied to others. We see plenty of examples of this at the present time. But there too one has to be careful. There can be different standards of judgment on other issues too, sometimes even involving Jews, without anti-Semitism or without necessarily being motivated by anti-Semitism… The other special feature of anti-Semitism, which is much more important than differing standards of judgment, is the accusation against Jews of cosmic evil."

Thus we should distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. I haven’t seen Lewis mentioning new anti-Semitism in Iran but rather among Arabs. Ahmadi nejad is definitely anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic. Ahmadinejad’s denial of holocaust, while definitely unjustified, only meant that why Arab’s should pay the price of west’s anti-Semitism. I think

Aside from these comments anti-Semitism shouldn’t become a catch phrase to condemn someone. There are academic scholars who share BhaiSaab’s view (like the distinguished academic scholars of Islamic studies, Montgomery Watt). These are his words:

"I do, however, think that the US is following a very dangerous policy in relation to the Middle East. The root of this trouble is that the US gives too much support to Israel. They allow them to have nuclear weapons and to do all sorts of things, some of which are contrary even to Jewish law. Jewish families occupy Arab houses without payment. That is stealing. I think that the US should be much firmer with Israel and put a lot of pressure on them, though this is difficult because of the strong Jewish lobby. Unless something is done there’ll be dangerous conflict in the Middle East. Such danger would be less likely to arise if all three Abrahamic faiths - Jews, Christians and Muslims - paid greater respect to what God teaches us about living together.". I would be thankful if the bhaisaab’s block could be removed. BTW, It seems that it was the other user who first brought up this issue and not BhaiSaab.

Thanks, --Aminz 05:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I just reviewed this unblock, wherein I discovered the following niceties for which BhaiSaab was blocked: Ahmadinejad I think he's an awesome guy. (which I agree was meant to provoke), Israel shouldn't be on the map in the first place. and Israeli prosperity is a result of leeching off the United States. I declined the unblock as I viewed these comments as inappropriate.  Agree entirely with the blocking admin -- Samir धर्म  05:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel tells quite a tale as to Ahmadinejad's side of the story, and BhaiSaab knows that he is talking to a person who is declared as a Jew User:Hkelkar. As for claims that I am pro-Hindu or something I also blocked User:Subhash bose for religious inflammation (calling Muhammad a pedophile) and User:FairNBalanced also for a week (uploading Allah=pig photo) in the past. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

To Samir: Samir, please note that 1. it seems that the other user brought up the issue first. 2. The majority of people in Iran voted for ahmadinejad. So, please respect it. There are people who think he is a nice guy. 3. Israel being on the map is the POV of many people. I personally think Jews and Muslims should live peacefully together, but maybe under a common goverment. 3. He said: "Israeli prosperity is a result of leeching off the United States" during the discussion. --Aminz 05:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Blnguyen, see, I am an Iranian. I want a proof for your allegation of anti-semtism against Ahmadi Nejad who is a living person. Fair is fair. He is ruining many things and undefendable in many cases, but he is not an anti-semitic. I think I have the right to ask why you called him an anti-semtic. --Aminz 05:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * One week strikes me as excessive. User:Hkelkar was dishing it out pretty well him/herself:, "oooooooooooh! I'm so scared!I hope he is as awesome when he tries to "wipe Israel off the map" and gets blasted into a hole in the ground.Hkelkar 01:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)" , , "We'll see who tries to harm Israel. Israel is too prosperous, wealthy and successful to be threatened by some mad mullah.Israel has first world technology, art, science. Israel doesn't ram planes into buildings or behead journalists on television. No medeival dump with a theocratic mullah running things can be a threat to the holy land. Nor any other Arab/Persian/whatever country for that matter.Hkelkar 01:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)", "Like I said, we still win. You still lose.Hkelkar 01:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)". (→ Netscott ) 05:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that Hkelkar was leading the discussion and BhaiSaab was merely responding. --Aminz 05:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * While Hkelkar's comments were not appropriate, they do not justify BhaiSaab's in any way -- Samir धर्म 06:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we need to analyze this issue in its context. Hklekar was the initiative and that's important. BhaiSaab's comments were short and in response to his comments. And again, I know that it might not be appropriate to write so in wikipedia, but BhaiSaab has a POV which is not far from that of some renowned academics. But I agree that he shouldn't have wrote them on Hkelkar's talk page, but again, the initiative was Hkelkar. --Aminz 06:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed that context is important. However, this is not a POV block issue, it is a block for inappropriate comments, which BhaiSaab made, regardless of the context thereof; the bottom line is that his comments were inflammatory even if he was provoked.  As such, I think the block was appropriate.  I have to leave but, I agree that the comments of Hkelkar should probably be reviewed as well -- Samir धर्म  06:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't justify BhaiSaab's statements, but I think the fair thing would be to block both. Hkelkar's comments were obviously provocative. Tito xd (?!?) 06:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Samir, apparently those were the last in a line of inappropirate commentary by User:Hkelkar. Have a look here. Hkelkar's sarcastic use of terms like, "Halaal?" and "..should regard me as the Mujaddid.." and "infidel" while referencing User:BhaiSaab appeared in the lead up to BhaiSaab's blocking and I suspect there are other examples of such commentary as well, Aminz? Equally inappropriate commentary should merit equal punishment no? I see a 12 hour block for User:Hkelkar, but no 12 hour block for User:BhaiSaab (obviously he got a week). (→ Netscott ) 06:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To be frankly honest, in this sphere of editing it is basically close to worthless to police for mild personal attacks as it is more or less standard amongst this lot. I have already blocked HKelkar for the ad hominem Jihad references. So that leaves religious and racial inflammation, which BhaiSaab appears to have done. Hkelkar's personal jibe is more or less the norm in this area. Things which are meant to raise the ire of others by insulting religious figures or ethnicities is what matters more. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Blnguyen, I agree with you about the propensity for personal attacking in the sphere of these topics and the virtual pointlessness of trying to police this but are you denying the religiously inflammatory nature of User:Hkelkar's commentaries? (→ Netscott ) 06:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But it is clear that Hkelkar was actively provoking BhaiSaab. BhaiSaab mentioned his POV(which by itself is a POV), which he shouldn't have mentioned. A week is too much seeing that Hkelkar was blocked for only 12 hours. --Aminz 06:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

(leftshift after edit conflict) Let's make something clear. This is not about Ahmadinejad, and this is not a mere political dispute. This is about BhaiSaab's behavior and being uncivil. Let's note that this user did not think twice before using offensive language. Holocaust denial indeed constitutes antisemitism (and not "anti-Zionism"). I strongly support Blnguyen's decision on this matter. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We can discuss it whether Ahmadinejad's denial of holocaust was anti-semitism or not, but did BhaiSaab deny it? He just said Israel shouldn't have been in the map in the first place. That is not a good comment to be made in wikipedia, but why is it anti-semtism? --Aminz 06:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I also support Blnguyen's actions - BhaiSaab's comments were completely uncalled for. Hkelkar is a seperate issue - his frequent appearances on WP:PAIN to report people show a pattern of provoking others, that however, is a matter for RfC not a reson to unblock another editor. Shell babelfish 06:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * May I ask you if you consider prof. Edward Said an anti-semitic? Again, I think BhaiSaab comments were not proper but not anti-semitic. A week is too long, given that he was provoked. --Aminz 06:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was talking about the comment "Does denying the holocaust automatically make one anti-Semitic". To Aminz question: please read New anti-Semitism. Meanwhile, let's note that this was only one of many offensive things that BhaiSaab said. And for the record, I don't recall ever seeing contribs by . Please let's not make this a political talkbox. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have seen New anti-Semitism and I think the views of some scholars such as Lewis are downplayed, or not properly reflected. BhaiSaab didn't really said much offensive things. His comments were short responses to Hkelkar. This discussion shouldn't have take place in the first place and it was Hkelkar who started it. --Aminz 06:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm an anti-Zionist (heck, I'm an anti-nationalist) and I'm not an anti-Semite. I don't think BhaiSaab should be given extra punishment because an admin doesn't like one of his political positions. This isn't to say that BhaiSaab is a model editor, but then neither is Hkelkar. We're seeing Indian domestic politics erupt in WP and it's an ugly sight. Zora 06:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, anti-Semitism means a discrimination against the jews simply because they are jews. BhaiSaab's argument wasn't hanging around the fact that Israel was formed by Jews but that why Israel was formed. It is a political position and has nothing to do with anti-semtism. --Aminz 07:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, maybe I haven't read well all of the details of this but where has User:BhaiSaab denied the Holocaust? Obviously he's pro-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who himself alludes to such thinking) but can one not be generally pro something while concurrently against certain aspects of that thing? (→ Netscott ) 07:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Errr, this isn't about BhaiSaab's political opinions. It's about him making in this case an ethnically inflammatory jibe – irrespective of what anybody thinks of Ahmadinejad, he is inextricably associated (regardless of anybody's opinion of him) as being anti-Semitic, Holocaust denying and Hitler apologist and the use of the jibe could only be seen as an attempt at ethnic/religious bloodboiling. Such incidents as the Muhammad=pedophile comment by Subhash bose and the Allah=Pig comment by FairNBalanced have also been met with a one week block.


 * In the case of Hkelkar, the type of behaviour he engages in more or less the norm in this sphere of editing we are talking about. Both sides more or less assume bad faith, accuse the others of being out to get them, siege mentality, sarcasm, calling each other bigots, extremists, fundamentalists, arbitrary sock allegations etc. - see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:AMbroodEY/Fundy_Watch andWikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Category:Patriotic Indian Wikipedian's Guild – as such this kind of behaviour is more or less ignored or else we would have no coverage of India-Pakistan religious politics articles. I have found it useless to police people for this type of behaviour (See my talk archives – if anybody wants to start trying to police this area properly, then they are welcome to try), so the line is basically when somebody makes racial insults or religious lampoonery akin to the Muhammad cartoons etc in an attempt at bloodboiling. In the case of Kelkar (a declared Jew) here, he has claimed that the other users are doing an “Ahmadinejad” on him – this is the standard in this area of editing - to claim that users with opposing POV have an agenda. I do not see how this is equivalent to what BhaiSaab, bose or FairNBalanced have done.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the Subhash Bose case but as far as User:FairNBalanced is concerned the comparison of User:BhaiSaab to him isn't fully justified imho. User:FairNBalanced had been inserting himself into a group of Muslim editors and making religiously hateful edits for a long time prior to his final insult with the AllahPig image and it was for that reason that his weeklong block was merited. I've seen the ridiculous Muhammad=Pedophile idiocy bandied about repeatedly (User:Mike18xx comes to mind) and not seen blocking for it but merely warnings. In a similiar vein Andy Rooney recently made the argument that it was ridiculous that the American government should be hypocritically saying that other countries like North Korea and Iran shouldn't have the bomb. One could argue that he supports these countries because of this... but in reality that's false because his opinion is that no country should have the bomb. User:BhaiSaab was certainly baiting User:Hkelkar with his pro Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and anti-Zionist commentary but I don't think his having done that was much worse than what User:Hkelkar himself has had a pattern of doing. (→ Netscott ) 07:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I blocked Bose was new and I blocked immediately for that one, because that kind of inflammatory hate-speech isn't allowed. As for FairNBalanced, I had never heard of him and when Crzrussian reported it, I blocked immediately and asked people who appeared very familiar to adjust as necessary as I didn't have knowledge of what his past was. I am not comparing the records of BhaiSaab and FairNBalanced, I am referring to their singular acts. I asked people to modify FairNBalanced's block based on their knowledge of his past and nobody did anything. I don't feel that your comparison to N Korea is valid. People on WP repeatedly show their political opinions on political leaders all the time and nothing happens. I myself have been aware that BhaiSaab feels that Israel is illegitimate since August and declined a block request from his sparring partners. What happens here is that the uncontrollable norm of incivility, AGF violations, personal jibes, bogus accusations of misbehaviour and mudslinging etc in this area has crossed into the RED ZONE of making ethnic or religious jibes, which is where the magnitude of the block comes in. These guys have been doing the standard niggling tactics for 2 months. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * BhaiSaab just said that Israel shouldn't have been formed in the first place and that Ahmadinejad is nice. That's it. --Aminz 07:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Can anyone supporting this week long block provide a diff showing solid proof of anti-Semitic commentary/trolling on the part of User:BhaiSaab (anit-Zionist commentary is readily apparent)? Thanks. (→ Netscott ) 07:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here are two that strike me as uncivil and intentionally offensive: Israel shouldn't be on the map in the first place. Israeli prosperity is a result of leeching off the United States. But I can imagine for someone who doesn't know the History of anti-Semitism, these won't ring a bell. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you response Humus sapiens. Those are undeniably anti-Zionist statements but can you honestly argue that they are undeniably anti-Semitic? I see confusion on the part of commentators here between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism... the arguement to new anti-Semitism is a weak one as the whole phenomenon of "new anti-Semitism" is debatable given the arguments of folks like Norman Finkelstein (see this). (→ Netscott ) 07:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Humus sapiens, thanks for sharing your thoughts. As far as I know anti-Semitism didn't happen in Muslim lands. Muslims were not treating Christians and Jews differently in any way, and traditionally Jews and Muslims were closer to each other than each of them was to Christians. It was only after the establishment of Israel that we observe this unfriendly conversations between Jews and Muslims. Otherwise, they were very close to each other, (and I would like to think they are). That's all I know about the history of anti-semitism. --Aminz 07:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Incorrect.My own matrilineal ancestors came to India from Iraq to flee the persecution of Jews there. This was in the 18th century. Read about the history of the Baghdadi Jews in India, particularly David Sassoon.Plus, the Jews in Pakistan were ethnically cleansed together with the Hindus during partition in 47. Read about the now nonexistent Peshawar jewsih community. Khushwant Singh's "Train to Pakistan" also talks about the ethnic cleansing of the Pakistani Jews. None of this had anything to do with Israel.Hkelkar 07:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For the reference to my comment, please see Mark Cohen (1995). Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton University Press. p.xvii ; Lewis (1984) Jews of Islam p.85 and Carl Ernst Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World, UNC Press, p.13 All I said was quite factual. --Aminz 08:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * All right. Let me add my own two cents. It is my goal to make scholarly and well-referenced edits to wikipedia.However, I am a human being with human flaws, including the tendency to get provoked. Bear in mind that it was BhaiSaab who started the talk page conversation regarding the holocaust denier who's currently running Iran.I reacted aggressively, and for that I am regretful.However, let me add some more facts.Prior to the talk page incitement, I was on #wikipedia-en chatting about an unrelated matter when Bhaisaab showed up and PM'ed me. He made some of the most frightening comments I had heard in my life, up to and including polemical attacks against Jews (not Israel, but Jews as a people). A lot of these statements are considered as anti-semitic. I did not react well to those statements and was in a very agitated state.


 * However, since these statements were made off wikipedia, I ask that it be entered into evidence only as context. The context establishes that he intended to provoke me with inflammatory comments following the outcome of an edit war in another article (which, when thankfully stopped by administrator intervention, did not leave the situation in his favor). His support of the holocaust denier's call to eradicate Israel is a follow-up to that off-wikipedia conversation. When I first referred to the holocaust denier who's presently running things in Iran, I was addressing neither the user BhaiSaab nor the holocaust denier in the first person. Ergo, the comment, not directed at any specific person, does not count as an incitement. The only way it could have incited BhaiSaab was if he already had the view that any reference to the holocaust denier in a negative vein had to be responded to aggressively and with malice against the one who made the statement, and I cannot be held responsible for such an attitude.


 * Plus, regarding the apparently overwhelming support for BhaiSaab, I ask reviewers to dig a little deeper into the users who make such statements.Specifically, the block logs, and the temporal correlations with their reactions to the blocks and those of BhaiSaab in prior incidents.Also, glean from all this the apparent "Quid-pro-quo" system where BhaiSaab has similarly raised a stink when some of these users got blocked.Plus, cross-reference the users who speak "on his behalf" and the members listed in the Muslim Guild page, as well as the edits of these users in earlier debates, some of which are quite prejudiced against specific ethnic and religious groups and point to a level of hate that I had not expected to see on wikipedia. Correlate those ethnic groups to the ones involved in this issue, either directly or peripherally, and you will see that there is far more to this matter than meets the eye.


 * Now, like Pontius Pilate, I shall wash my hands of this matter altogether. Do whatever you please.Hkelkar 07:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "...Some of which are quite prejudiced against specific ethnic and religious groups..." Is it a personal attack?--Aminz 07:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, a personal attack from me? On whom?Hkelkar 07:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Plus, cross-reference the users who speak "on his behalf" and the members listed in the Muslim Guild page, as well as the edits of these users in earlier debates, some of which are quite prejudiced against specific ethnic and religious groups and point to a level of hate that I had not expected to see on wikipedia. Dear Administrators, the only person talking on the behalf of BhaiSaab is me, and I am the only member of Muslim Guild here. Kelkar says I am quite prejudiced against specific ethic and religous groups which I consider a personal attack on myself. --Aminz 07:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, my statements were very carefully worded. I did not say that there was a connection between the Muslim Guild editors here and prejudiced comments. There are several users speaking on BhaiSaab's behalf. If A is a subset of C and B is a subset of C then that does not mean that A=B. See Venn diagram to understand this point better.Hkelkar 07:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Subhash Bose used to this type of Venn diagram stuff tooTerryJ-Ho


 * The logical fallacy in this claim is obvious if you can draw some Venn Diagrams.Your argument is problematic. The contrapositive of a logical statement WOULD be true if you have firmly established that EVERY INSTANCE OF set A leads to EVERY INSTANCE of set B, and you haven't established that at all.None of these so called "scholars" (with no background in mathematics or logic it would seem) have.(Netaji 11:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC))
 * Yes many wikipedians like to use logical arguments. So every logician on wikipedia is my "sock" ^__^.Hkelkar 19:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not many work in the same laboratory,study in the same university,work almost on the same set of articles with similar perception,use similar sources,are common friends,express the same love for Zionism,act in the same aggressive manner,lie indiscriminately.One can recognise Bakaman's language,Bhaaisaab's language,Zora's language before reading their names.TerryJ-Ho 20:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BhaiSaab#Wikipedia:Administrators.27_noticeboard.2FIncidents.23User:_BhaiSaab.E2.80.99s_block_and_allegation_of_provoking_anti-Semitism

Thanks --Aminz 08:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Posting an IRC log is a policy violation: see . ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Its not a channel log, its the log of a PM. --NuclearZer0 00:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I support the admins actions here. The language the blocked user used was completely inappropriate and completely against the spirit and the letter of the law on Wikipedia.  A week block seems fair.  Elizmr 20:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I also must voice my support for Blnguyen's and Samir's action. Nothing justifies BhaiSaab's behaviour; I have been attacked, insulted, provoked in far worse ways, and have never dreamed of awnsering them how BhaiSaab has, earning him is well deserved block, that I invite not to shorten. Yes, Hkelkar's behaviour is very far from exemplary, and may deserve also a block, even if it is, sadly, normal behaviour in certain areas of wikipedia. And yes, holocaust denial is antisemitism.--Aldux 23:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well this isnt the first time BhaiSaab has made anti-Israel/Semitic comments .Bakaman <sub style="color:blue;">Bakatalk 01:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between anti-Israel and anti-Semitic, a difference many people seem to miss on Wikipedia. BhaiSaab talk 11:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And not the first time HKelkar has used provocation TerryJ-Ho 18:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well BhaiSaab has been blocked a multitude of times (9 to be exact), mostly for contentious edits and revert warring. It would be 10 but for the fact that he misled an admin to believe I had vandalized an article (while he was doing the blanking) under the canard of "copyvio". Terry, if you havent forgot, you yourself have given users nice names like "fascist" and "paid agent".Bakaman <sub style="color:blue;">Bakatalk 20:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This accusation has been obviously proved wrong on my talk page. BhaiSaab talk 11:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The admins should take into account that Hkelkar is systematically taking an extremely provocative attitude with people he disagrees, by constant edit-warring and playing with the 3RR rule (he provokes, waits for reaction, then provokes again, and let the counterpart edit a 3rd time, then he requests for blocking under 3RR violation). User Hkelkar has triggered unumerables threats of blocking, personnal attack action etc. Just check his account and see. Hkelkar never takes the time to elaborate his viewpoint on talk pages, he just can't argue normally and has no precise perspective. He's just a provocative hate-mongering trying to block as much as he can. One week block is excessive. Really. But the important point is the following; admins take into account: I've also been accused of antisemitism by Hkelkar simply because I used the word "neocon" in an article see ; hence, for Hkelkar just using the word "neocon" is a mark of antisemistism... That example should put Hkelkar's accusations at the level they deserve: these accusations are void. TwoHorned 21:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes but there have been other instances of bhaiSaab hatin on the Jews. Anyway, you have been apt to defame Koenraad Elst and Hkelkar has merely let you commit your own mistakes on the page. You obviously have no idea of BhaiSaab's block log, his contentious edits, his anti-Hindu stance, or his hatred for Israel. Putting things in bold doesn't automatically make it correct.Bakaman <sub style="color:blue;">Bakatalk 01:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Also read Blnguyen's comments, Assuming Bad Faith, comes much easier to us than AGF. BhaiSaab has engaged in rampant baiting and bogus warnings, and misrepresentations to get me blocked. Look at 8 archives of my talk page, and User:Shiva's trident, Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, etc. The point is that this has been a growing problem and we need to draw the line, just like they did with Subhash_bose. I have no idea who Aminz is, but my dealings with Netscott have not been positive either (see arx's on this noticeboard itself) with him accusing me of being a sock and vandalizing my comments when I confronted him about false allegations of socking.Bakaman <sub style="color:blue;">Bakatalk 01:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What kind of accusation is "bhaiSaab hatin on the Jews" - I have never "hated on the Jews." Where are the misrepresentations? I'd like to see you prove anything in this comment. BhaiSaab talk 11:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are wrong Bakaman. I never made defamation on Koenraad Elst page: over all the discussions happening there, I've always given references and arguments. As opposed to Hkelkar, whose mere edits were: "Indology is not a science" or "referring to Daniel Pipes as a neocon is a mark of antisemitism". Hkelkar plays it the disruptive way. Nothing else. TwoHorned 06:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Pedro Zamora and Judd Winick
Can someone block the vandal who keeps hitting the Pedro Zamora and Judd Winick articles? User:208.251.92.67 and User:65.241.54.173 (Likely the same person, since both IPs trace to Los Angeles, and are used by someone making the exact same changes), keep deleting material from these two articles, including the accompanying photo in the case of the latter, even after I and another editor keep reverting it, and refuse to engage in dialogue on the appropriate talk pages. Nightscream 05:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Pedro Zamora sprotected. pschemp | talk 01:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This may have some relevance to who was on a campaign to recreate Brian Quintana (Afd'ed here in February), repeatedly recreating it, ignoring all messages about G4 and Deletion Review, until the article was salted. Apparently, there's some ongoing feud between Winick and Quintana about Zamora. Dollys' Talk page messages (like this one) assumed that editors involved were somehow involved with our "Jewish friend Judd Winick". Fan-1967 21:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what good that level of protection will do, since it appears that the unregistered Dollys simply reversed the edit that implemented it, and Quintana is now a registered user who himself has begun re-inserting his vandalized edits. He has been given a warning on his Talk Page (without the red octagonal stop sign, mind you), and if this continues, something more decisive may have to be done. In addition, someone is also vandalzing the Judd Winick page, which is not similarly "protected" (though I cannot be certain it's the same editor(s). Nightscream 01:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

TV Newser & Ponch's Disco
I have filed this case for mediation, but these guys are taking this to a new level. Please see The American Card Catalog article and the discussion for more details. I do not care to discuss anything with these individuals (or perhaps socks) any more. Just get them to leave me alone please!! I have removed their warnings from my talk page because they are completely bogus. I do not have a problem with being "warned" if it is for just cause.Tecmobowl 08:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tecmobowl is acting like one of the vandals in the Spotteddogsdotorg/Scott Brown sockpuppet ring switching from television to baseball and staying away from his main targets of abuse. The patterns are obvious, even down to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents posting and playing innocent. I first suspected him a few weeks ago. TV Newser Tipline 09:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't think i've ever edited a tv page. Looks like people seem to agree with me though on his/her talk page.  I don't care to continue discussions with this user, I just want to make the information out there reflective of the wiki standards. --Tecmobowl 09:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Tecmobowl has never once edited a TV article, the hallmark of a SpottedDogs sock. These sock allegations are completely out of the blue, have lasted for weeks, and just make no sense. I have asked TV Newser before to cool it with the sock allegations and it just hasn't stopped. I have blocked user:TV Newser for 24 hours for disturbance. I welcome review. Firsfron of Ronchester  09:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Baseless claims are disruptive and highly uncivil. – Chacor 09:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse as well. These actions were pure harrasment, with no evidence. Daniel.Bryant 09:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * TV Newser is part of the CFIF/Splash cabal that sees socks everywhere. They think I am a sock and will claim that me defending Tecmobowl is more evidence that I am a sock and he is a sock. I am not a sock, he is not a sock and he as only made good edits and really understands the concept of wiki. TV Newser, CFIF, and Splash should all be banned forever! Belly Flop Patrol 09:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Another stupid ridiculous baseless outbreak like that would probably see you banned forever. – Chacor 09:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, looking at your contributions, you've only pretty much acted like a troll today - your first edits in a month. Very suspicious. – Chacor 09:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I just got edit-conflicted at an AFD this new guy just participated in, by someone who signed as Tecmobowl. I definitely smell possible sockpuppetry here. – Chacor 09:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you accusing me of? Wouldn't be surprised if this was TV Newser or a buddy. --Tecmobowl 10:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hallmarks of a standard troll. I welcome any admin to have a look. – Chacor 10:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure exactly what's going on with Special:Contributions/85.214.27.102, but it looks potentially relevant to this whole situation. Impersonator or troll of some sort? Luna Santin 10:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever it is, IMO that IP needs to be blocked. The way to settle this whole thing would be an RFCU. – Chacor 10:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP for 24 hours. Now I'm off to bed, will try to investigate further tomorrow. I appreciate all the input from Chacor and Daniel, and the investigation by Luna and Chacor. Thanks, all, and good night. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  10:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm so totally confused, is Chacor accusing me of something or not? That being said, is it safe to say that unless something is done to one of the pages in question, I can leave this issue alone? --Tecmobowl 10:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone signed as you at Articles for deletion/FEMA Trailer. Was it you logged out? If it wasn't, then we're dealing with IPs trying to cause further havoc here. – Chacor 10:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, that wasn't me. This is me signed out71.56.127.218 10:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, don't get drawn in to this people. is clearly a sock since he knows far too much about a situation he's never been involved in. I've indef blocked. TV Newser is flying off the handle as usual, and needed to be blocked. End of. -Splash - tk 10:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Completely agree with that block, as well as the earlier one of Newser. Newser appears to be trolling here. His post here uses diffs from Tecmobowl's reponse to the constant talk page reverts as evidence that Tecmobowl himself is the harassing one. Not funny. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is getting ridiculous, Special:Contributions/User:Ponch's Disco seems to be following TV Newser's lead. Please advise. Tecmobowl 06:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

CSD G12 and copyvio
It appears Jimbo has done away the 48 hour and commercial purpose requirements of CSD A8 a.k.a. G12, and with it has virtually obviated copyvio. Am I understanding this correctly? I asked Jimbo to clarify. Should we modify the copyvio template to reflect the change? - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We probably should modify copyvio to that effect and maybe start dephasing it slowly. However it could still be useful in less straight-forward cases of alleged copyvio. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 10:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We should retain it for that reason. There are cases of genunie confusion and uncertainty. And then, giving someone with the interest the time to look it over is useful. There's no need to deprecate copyvio, although it's use should naturally decline. -Splash - tk 18:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Zarbon evading 2 month 3RR block
User:Zarbon was recently blocked for 3RR (5th offense) on Dodoria. He has an exremeley out of control WP:OWN issue with Kiwi (Dragon Ball), Zarbon, and Dodoria (see his talk page and the page histories for examples). He is now evading his block with his IP adress, (See the IP's contribs for proof that it is his).-- Koji  Dude  (Contributions) 02:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked. --InShaneee 16:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I should create a new section or not, but he's also using Recoome and 149.68.168.154 to also avoid the block. The edit histories should be enough, but if they aren't, I can find more. Nemu 17:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

removing afd tags
I hope this is the right place for this. Anonymous user 208.104.149.167 removed an afd1 tag from Halloweentown: She's a Witch while debate was still open. I have informed this user that the action was unacceptable and restored the tag. Is there anything else I should do?Natalie 03:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not unless they do it again. pschemp | talk 04:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * For future reference, you can just drop a drmafd1 tag on their talk page rather than coming up with something. Easier for you and more specific for them. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 05:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Thanks folks.Natalie 14:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Duke53 posting warnings without merit
I am not sure this is the correct page, please direct me if it is not. Duke53 has posted several warnings on my user talk page, but either lacks an understanding of policy or is attempting to intimidate me. I have reviewed his contributions and he seems to be using warnings as threats with others. It may be helpful if a 3rd party reviews and comments directly to him to achieve acceptable behavior. Thanks. Storm Rider (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Duke53 has been argumentative upon occasision. You can see one such discussion at Talk:Crystal_Gail_Mangum.  I removed Duke53's last reamrk,, but most of the conversation is still there.  He is also being somewhat uncivil at Talk:2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_team_scandal and also making semi-off-topic posts. further down the same Talk page.  Johntex\talk 05:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I also found this warning given inappropriately for this edit. I think Duke just has a fundamental misunderstanding of vandalism, personal attack, or any other potential warning.  He passes them out haphazardly and inappropriately.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add a mention of the blatant incivility demonstrated in this thread. --Masamage 18:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Zisoc?
has done almost nothing other than to add db-noimage to 1.3 zillion image files. Can he be mass-rolledback w/o doing so being called "disruption"? Even w/ image files one has uploaded oneself? Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk 05:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I've just done a mass rollback, even though some of them may have been rightful taggings. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't arguing that some small number of them might possibly on the remotest chance have been rightfully tagged with db-noimage...but the 6 I looked at, including the one I uploaded, clearly were not... Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  06:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What? The ones I looked at were properly tagged, for image files from commons that did have empty (blanked instead of deleted) image description pages here. Which one did you actually have a problem with? - Bobet 07:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh...one of us has got to be smoking too much crack...Image:Eiao map.jpg is the one that set me off... Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk 07:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Am Í missing something? Why are you adding categories here for images that only exist on commons? Why won't you create an account at commons and categorize them there? If the description page only has a category, it's not useful. - Bobet 07:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * First off, it's not "my" image, I simply used it.  I don't know what you might be missing, or what, for that matter, I might be missing, but I've responded as best I can to the question I think you're asking, on your talk page.  Cheers, Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  07:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As an aside, and on afterthought, I think I may finally understand what you're driving at with your characterization of categorizing an image as "not useful"...and I have to say, I fundamentally disagree with the assertion I think you're making. Categories are not designed to be useful to the editors of wikipedia, especially not to experienced editors...as useless as they are to the complete novice, categories are designed to be useful to readers untainted by the jaded stains of trollabused wikieditors.  I think you'll be hard-pressed to find any "feature" of wikipedia that's designed to alleviate the strain on editors--everything is done to relieve strain on the readers.  Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  07:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The commons category that contains the image in question (among others), is linked from the equivalent wikipedia category. Creating a page that only contains a category for an image that's already in the same category in commons is redundant (in my opinion). - Bobet 08:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Lemme try to figure this out tomorrow when I get home from work. For now, I've gotta get some sleep. Just don't do anything drastic on me while I'm gone. :-p Cheers, Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  08:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

possible mass link spamming
User:Keytoart appears to be engaged in mass link spamming in art-related articles. --Jtir 07:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Links contain the phrase "works_for_rent".
 * Editor's user name is in the URL: "www.keytoart.org.ua".
 * Editor inserted links at the top of a list of external links and added a boldface title.
 * Editor added links that are not directly related to the subject of the article.
 * Editor has been warned before and has twice removed a spam warning from his talk page.
 * Editor does not leave an edit summary.


 * Wow, (s)he's been under the radar for a long time. Blocked indef, and I'll get the sites he kept linking to put on the spam blacklist. Thanks a ton. --Slowking Man 12:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! There have been two sites AFAICT. One, which is now blocked, and the earlier: http://users.iptelecom.net.ua/~keytoart/, which appears in Dmytro Horbachov. (It looks like all of users.iptelecom.net is being blocked and I am not sure that is what is wanted.) --Jtir 16:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I got www.keytoart.org.ua and users.iptelecom.net blacklisted. I can't imagine any article in which you'd need to link to the latter, but if such a situation ever comes up, the specific URL can be locally whitelisted. --Slowking Man 22:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I see what you mean — the latter is for user pages. I didn't think of that. Thanks. --Jtir 22:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyay Parivar
The article Swadhyay Parivar is abused constantly if some one adds the critical information about this information. There are some people and obviously anonymous users who always delete the information which is critical about this community. They want to post information which only talks nice of Swadhaya Parviar and Jayashree Talwalkar.

The critical information / the converters about this community highlighted in the article have citation and were greatly highlighted in Indian media and throughout the world by Gujarthi media. Can some one please block new users / unregistered users edit this article.

--IndianCow 07:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * User:89.240.152.14 is one such instance.

Michael Ignatieff
A sysop protected this a few hours ago and now has a "wikibreak" sign on their talk page. The article was protected with a high degree of pov-pushing by the supporters of Ignatieff who is right now in the middle of a political election campaign. There was no reason to protect it and to do so right after 1 side of the edit dispute had their way is a misuse of the "protection" option. Ottawaman 12:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am the sysop who protected the article, that wikibreak notice means I am not so active because of exams. I protected the The Wrong Version because I discovered there is a content dispute going on, with no knowledge of the election campaign. --WinHunter (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, this user appears to have chosen a name to impersonate myself and is editing negatively in the same Islamic topics as myself. Given this user's knowledgeable editing this is an obvious sockpuppet. This editor has been vandalizing Islam related articles by adding spurious and  tags. The vandalism extends to blanking and heavy negative and uncivil POV editing (which admin User:FayssalF issued a warning for). To top off this user's short editing history they've been adding to User:FayssalF, User:BhaiSaab, User:HighInBC and my own user related pages. A permanent solution relative to this user name would be most appreciated. Thanks. (→ Netscott ) 13:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have just added this user to WP:AIV, I don't consider his antics any more special than regular vandalism and am treating it as such. As for the name, it is a very common last name, do any of his edits support the idea that he is trying to impersonate you? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 13:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have blocked him for one week...and if he returns and continues along the same path, the block will be longer so don't hesitate to let me know how things transpire.--MONGO 13:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks MONGO, keep up the good work. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 13:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks MONGO for the prompt assistance. (→ Netscott ) 13:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

inappropriate username
Hope this is the right place - User:Andministrator has an inappropriate username. Natalie 13:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The 'right places' according to process seems to be AIV if it's obvious or a username RFC (much lighter weight than most sorts of RFC!) if it isn't. I'm not sure, but I suspect AN/I will do just as well in practice. --ais523 14:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

How to handle this situation - advice needed
I am under the impression that WP:V applies to all articles. When I come across a series of articles that have been on Wikipedia a long time and have no sources cited, I put the unsourced tag at the top under the belief that, in the long term, identifying and sourcing these articles is for the betterment of Wikipedia.

Today I was adding the Blues Foundation Hall of Fame Induction list for 1980 on the blues artists inducted. I noticed that all of them were unsourced so I added the unsourced tag and clearly noted the reason in the edit summary. Now someone has systematically removed the unsourced tag from each article under the edit summary of "cleanup" or something similar, but without adding any sources.

How do I handle situations like this? I contacted the editor in question and she says I have no business adding such tags. She considers my tagging driveby tagging and made assumptions about my knowledge of blues and intentions. She noted that I was not part of the Blues Project and have no right.

My question: Is this ethical behavior on her part? She not only removed the tags without asking me my intentions (i.e. was I contributing to articles about the blues -- which I have as well as writing them -- and also her removing the tags under misleading edit summaries.

Should I just ignore this and leave blues subjects alone (back away from such situations is the more frequent advice I get) or is it in Wikipedia's best interest that unsourced articles be tagged as such to inspire those interested to improve the articles? Thanks for any input! Mattisse(talk) 16:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Removing an unsourced tag without supplying a source is vandalism. Might I suggest a politely worded comment on the editor's Talk page, and ask why they did the edit they did?  If they persist, list them as a vandal.  User:Zoe|(talk) 16:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for answering. Mattisse(talk) 18:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem appears to be that you are conflating citing sources with a specific style of citation. You are tagging articles because they don't use &lt;ref&gt;, rather than because they don't cite sources. (Several of the articles that you tagged did cite sources.) unsourced is for where there are no actual (usable) citations, of any style. The tag that you are looking for is citation style. Before going overboard with that tag, note that citation style should match the breadth of applicability of the source to the article. This often leads to a mixed citation style. See Vince Foster, for example. Uncle G 15:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am going by a long standing discussion with User:TomTheHand.Please see recently User_talk:Mattisse and User_talk:TomTheHand This administrator has been very clear and consistent over time. Other than TomTheHand, I can not find a reliable source of guidance on this isuue. If you can point me in the direction of one, I would greatly appreciate that. Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 15:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The article in question cited 7 sources, all listed in Robert Johnson. The problem here is not that sources were not cited.  They were.  A citation, giving the author, publisher, title, and date of a book, is a full citation.  It provides the conventional information necessary for a reader to locate the source, which is what citations are for. The problem that you are addressing is not lack of citations, but, rather, which part of the content is supported by which cited source.  In the absence of &lt;ref&gt; or Harvard-style notations in the body of the text, there are no explicit links between content and citation.  That doesn't mean that the article is unsourced, however.  It merely means that the exact source to consult for any specific part of the article isn't being spoon-fed to the reader.  In many cases, the article can be improved, by linking sources to specific article sections, or to specific paragraphs, using &lt;ref&gt; or Harvard-style notations.  But, conversely, note that there are cases where sources can encompass wide swathes of, or even the whole, article, and the link between citation and content really is best left at the level of the article as a whole. Our Verifiability policy merely requires that sources be cited, somehow.  The (minimum) author+publisher+title+date information for (say) a book source, enabling readers to locate the book, must be present, in some fashion.  The exact cross-linking of content and citations is a matter of style, some differences of opinion, and (anyway) what the cross-connections are in each specific case.  For more information see Citing sources. Uncle G 16:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Tonycdp wants to be indefblocked
We're not supposed to indefblock people who want to leave Wikipedia. But, this guy threatens that he'll get himself indefblocked by disrupting Wikipedia if I don't block him. Do we have a procedure for this kind of cases? --Dijxtra 16:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say block him indefinatly, and if he ever wants to come back, let him consider the consequences of being disruptive to get what he wants. --InShaneee 16:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I blocked him. It's quite sad to see a person requesting a block, but I think that at this point we are loosing too much time on this discussion because it is evident that he decided to be indefblocked. Of course, everybody's free to wear suns^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hunblock him, I don't want to have anything with this any more, if you think I shouldn't have done this, just unblock him. --Dijxtra 17:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We really need to advertise the WikiBreak Enforcer more. I just unblocked someone else who was blocked at their own request. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA vote spamming
I would like to know if vote spamming in WP:RfAs is permissible, as was done by various (also anonymous) users in Requests for adminship/Khoikhoi 2. All anon users seem to have been blocked. However, there is one registered user, User:Mustafa Akalp, who hasn't. He is a Turkish user, who right before initiating his spamming, decided to become incognito by moving the Turkish flag from his userpage to a subpage. He later posted several vote-bullying messages that request users (in Turkish) to vote Strong oppose, as seen in the following diffs: There are many more (check contribs). •N i k o S il v e r• 13:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Mustafa's spamming should be rollbacked and the guy blocked for disruption. This is the worst thing that may happen on RfA: the nomination may be derailed for good. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  13:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * IMO, it is questionable whether the votes brought through the vote stacking made by Mustafa Akalp can be considered legitimate; probably they should be discounted from the vote, as is often done with the disruption of polls. And yes, the spamming should be rollbacked to set an example, and its author blocked.--Aldux 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Can someone translate the turkish comments in some of these posts? Thatcher131 14:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is my point of view and replies;
 * Here is first alert message for about campaign is not allowed ; message from Gwernol
 * Here is ,my response to that admin.
 * I stopped to send any message to any user anymore. see my Contributions. I will check the rules more detailed. It seems some complexs, to make a campaign in the vote in any country obviously free, but not in wiki. I will learn and discuss the rules asap.
 * I will send some messages to some admins about my alleges before; see this,

see this, see this This my oppinions is not new..
 * Flag about in my page. It is a comic idea, to change flag.Why flag is distruptive for my alleges. My alleges not belong today(as you see above) and flag was there in all times.
 * Here the reality about flag; Old version was animated one that User:Tekleni had complained about copyvivo to an admin User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise, I took an alert from that admin User_talk:Mustafa_Akalp and I send my first response first response and second response
 * Now I transferred ( not delete!!)flag to my sadbox to replace a new pure-self made animated flag.
 * That is the reality.

Regards to all. Note; I can help for translations on my messages. Mustafa Akalp <sup style="color:blue;">TC 14:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm rolling back the spamming now. This type of behaviour is never acceptable.  I'll leave the decision on whether or not to block up to others; a stern warning may suffice depending on the translation of the comments. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like Naconkantari beat me to most of them. Oh well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Agree with reverts. Agree with possible block depending on comments. Noting here that there's been a bunch of IPs going around adding nonsense regarding this RFA to articles, which should probably be blocked on sight until at least the end of the RFA. – Chacor 14:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)~


 * Here is the traslations of Turkish to English;
 * Lütfen acilen oy kullanın: Please come in vote urgently.
 * User:.. admin olmak için oy topluyor.-User.. in vote to be admin. Lütfen hemen oy kullanın.;Please come in vote immediately.  Görüşlerinizi yazın.; Wtite your oppinions. İşte benimkiler; Those is mine.....Görüşlerin iletilmesi çok önemli; It is important to put oppinions/poit of wievs.

.Selam.:Regard. İlgili link..;related link
 * It is possible to have traslation from another source of course.
 * As you see, I never invite any body to an oppose vote .I required their oppinions at vote page.

Regards Mustafa Akalp <sup style="color:blue;">TC 14:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First you included your own opinion in your spam messages, which shows a clear bias. More importantly you have selected which editors you advertize the RfA to. This introduces tremendous bias into the process and is unacceptable. Gwernol 15:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, this is getting out of hand. He is now continuing his spamming activity in the Turkish WP. Contribs. •N i k o S il v e r•  15:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My bad. :-( I didn't check the times. The usual wrong assumption that something is done when you see it done, and not when the timestamp reads. My apologies to all involved. However, these contributions in the Turkish WP above can be used as evidence for Aldux's proposal above. ("it is questionable whether the votes brought through the vote stacking made by Mustafa Akalp can be considered legitimate; probably they should be discounted from the vote, as is often done with the disruption of polls.") •N i k o S il v e r•  16:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

(Having received an e-mail from Mustafa). While agreeing with all said above, I'd propose to the community that the block is lifted. I think that 48 hours for the first offense is way too much, and blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive; the crime he commited is serious and took a while to repair, but I don't think he was really aware how much it was against the rules. The thread above shows that Mustafa was civil and kind in response, as is my experience in contacts with him so far. I do agree what he did was way out of line, but I have a kind of understanding (if not sympathy) for what he perceives as team-tagging in Turkey and Greece related articles. He has simply chosen a very bad way to combat it, and (I hope) he learned his lesson. Duja 12:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I disagree. I may not be fully neutral on the issue, as I supported his nomination, but I feel that no tolerance must be shown to blatant attempts to disrupt a Rfa; IMO, it must be clear that all such attempts to carefully select the editors on a national base so to sink a rfa must earn a block.--Aldux 12:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with Aldux. I also received an email from Mustafa Akalp which clearly shows he does not understand that what he did was wrong. He claims: "my messages is not include any comment to receivers for 'opposite vote'" despite the fact that his messages all included his strongly worded oppose in them. He openly admits he was trying to taint the RfA pool "I sent my messages to some users that possibly had problems previously with Khoikhoi" and sees nothing wrong with this action. He genuinely believes he has proved his case against the candidate despite not providing any evidence. This is an organized witch hunt against Khoikhoi where allegations alone are expected to be accepted as evidence of serious wrongdoing. We must take a firm stand against this. I strongly oppose lifting this user's block, and personally consider a 48 hour block to be too short. There is plenty of reason to believe Mustafa Akalp will continue to disrupt Wikipedia's processes and articles as he doesn't understand what he did was wrong and has open and clear biases. Gwernol 12:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would support shortening the block (I've already asked jossi to consider it), merely because I'd like to give him the opportunity to withdraw his comments from Khoikhoi's RFA before it closes. If he doesn't wish to do so, then a longer block may be in order, but I think we should give him the opportunity. Yomangani talk 13:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd support this but only with the specific condition that Mustafa Akalp agrees to withdraw his oppose on the RfA and apologize to Khoikhoi for his accusation. I don't see the benefit of lifting the block unless he agrees to this beforehand. Gwernol 13:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Khoikhoi's RfA is to be completed within 24 hours. I don't think it's necessary to unblock Mustafa until the deadline. His behaviour was not acceptable and he should have ample time to reflect on this. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  13:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Shorten the block? No way! I'd support lengthening it to indefinite. We don't need any nationalist struggles on Wikipedia. That's the worst kind of disruption. -- Cyde Weys 14:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just received another email from Mustafa Akalp in which he claims his spamming was intended to "reach consensus" and in which he makes the claim that "from a neutral POV, No body had accused with like an allege before, in the history of wiki. More than 10 different users have this allege. This allege will have a stamp on this Rfa for ever." (by "allege" he is referring to his allegation that Khoikhoi was orchestrating edit wars by email off-Wiki). It is clear to me that Mustafa Akalp sees nothing wrong with his actions, is intentionally attempting to blacken the name of an editor in good standing and is an inveterate WP:POV pusher who will do anything to oppose those who are trying to maintain WP:NPOV. He has clearly declared that he will not remove his oppose contribution. I support an extended block or indefinite ban on this user, per Cyde. Gwernol 14:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I may dazzle you with this comment, since I am the one who initiated all this, but I'll go ahead and say it (and it is not a pretence of goodwill): Mustafa probably hasn't understood that vote-spamming is bad, because nobody explained it to him adequately (forgive me if I miss something). I suppose that if we explain why the community has decided that this practice cannot be tolerated, he will reform himself, as he shows many signs of goodwill (i.e. self translation of Turkish messages etc.) I am willing to proceed in doing this but maybe I am not the most welcome e-mail correspondent of his! I propose that someone does it, and if he is convinced to strike his unfounded comments from the RfA, he can continue to edit. That's my two drachmae! •N i k o S il v e r• 14:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the problems with his actions have been explained to him in meticulous detail over email (he sent email to me, I replied). His response is above, a firm belief that he has done nothing wrong, is trying to maintain WP:NPOV and reach WP:CONSENSUS. He genuinely does not understand the notion that spamming people known to oppose the candidate with his Oppose statement in the email might in some way bias the RfA proceedings. He also clearly stated that he intends that his allegations will leave " a stamp on this Rfa for ever". He simply won't admit any wrongdoing and has no intention of removing his comments. Someone this far from the vision of neutrality should not be participating in Wikipedia. Gwernol 15:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I support an indefinate block in this case, and in the case of all knowing vote spammers, especially in such a serious case as an RfA, and especially when used to display such a nationalist agenda. --InShaneee 15:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would also consider that an indef block is appropriate in the case of such a serious disruption. -- Grafikm  <sup style="color:red;">(AutoGRAF)  16:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Consider my previous comment retracted then. After all, we use cents now! :-) •N i k o S il v e r•  15:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * He has been clearly told that his actions were wrong; and he appears to be unrepentant, and by his last messages, continuing his groundless accusations. As for that all this was done to "reach consensus", i.e. calling all the fellow Turkish editors he knew. He simply refuses even to remember of a simple thing called WP:AGF. For this I support Gwernol and Cyde's positions.--Aldux 15:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If that's the consensus, then, I'll go ahead and extend the block. --InShaneee 19:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in, but I just would like u to remind that Mustafa is not a native English speaker and certain things might get lost in translation :)).. I share Nikos' opinion on this.. He is a relatively new user and I don't think that we are being able to communicate with him effectively. I voted strong support for Khoi, OTOH I think that we shouldn't just bang up on people who might feel differently, especially if they r not native anglophones.. Instead we should try to improve mutual communication.. Believe me, there are much more serious nationalist POV pushers here, but they are native speakers and know their way around, so they never get caught; Mustafa however is relatively naive coz of the language barrier and hiw rookieness.. It would not be fair just indefinitely blocking him just coz of that. As for the vote spam.. He also sent me the same msg as email even though he knew I was a Khoi supporter beforehand from previous discussions.. I voted support and I find racist the suggestion or implication that all Turks r against Khoi's membership for whatever reason, TR users voted support more than oppose.. People have the intelligence to make up their own mind u know :))) Baristarim 21:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to request the rest of the users here to give Baris the chance to explain to Mustafa why vote-spamming is not tolerated in WP in his own language. Baris, if you don't know either, it is because the participation in the polls has to be from all wikipedia in a proportional way. Specific groups may have made up their mind for or against an opinion, and inviting only those that you presume will share your views is not permissible. As I responded to you in the RfA, it is not a matter of racism or IQ. It is a matter of POV, and there are many smart guys out there with a strong POV. In case the other users agree, you will have to convince Mustafa to retract his unsubstantiated accusations for Khoikhoi in the RfA, and acknowledge that vote spamming is not permissible. •N i k o S il v e r• 22:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to disagree with the inef. block. First off, I don't think it's appropriate for a first offense. Most importantly, I believe that Mustafa is a good editor, and has contributed positively to articles such as Imbros. Does anyone mind if I unblock him? &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He can be told to behave better and be given a last chance I think. I support it mainly because of the extreme, damning irony involved in Khoikhoi unblocking this guy. ;-) Grand  master  ka  08:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to thank Khoikhoi, Niko and Baristarim for their efforts at giving Mustafa another chance here. I've had previous dealings with Mustafa and have found him generally good-willing and prepared to learn, but of course quite strongly hampered in his interactions on Wikipedia by his rather poor command of English. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This talk is continued in WP:AN. •N i k o S il v e r•  11:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful about blocking, this is a school IP - and if there's vandalism, please leave a message on my talkpage. Any blocks will cause collateral to me. --Pajnax 18:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not all - for several months we've been able to block anonymous users only. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Internet for Learning: Vandalism traced to schools
I am an employee of Internet for Learning, and I have just spent hours trawling the firewall logs to see which schools are responsible for the vandalism on this site.

The schools include: along with 2 other schools in the West Midlands, and 2 in the East Midlands.
 * Formby High School (www.formbyhigh.org)
 * Ainsdale High School (www.ainsdalehope.co.uk)
 * Greenbank High School, Southport, Lancashire (http://www.greenbank.sefton.sch.uk/)
 * Marling School, Bath, Somerset
 * Estover Community College

The vandalism seems to emanate from the 3 5 educational facilities mentioned above; I will post back any more information when I can find it.

Apparently students seem to have used the IFL grid to access pornographic material ('Nuts' magazine) and Wikipedia; these two sites appear most frequently in our firewall logs.

I would like to apologise for the behaviour of the students and I assure you, there will be an investigation into this (however, due to confidentiality, I cannot discuss the ongoing investigation any further). --Neil McCarthy (Internet for Learning) 19:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, for what it's worth, school IPs usually do commit a lot of vandalism. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * AN:I troll? Anyone? --InShaneee 21:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * refer to WP:AGF... ~crazytales56297 O rly? Ya rly! 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is genuine, I have checked the logs, and they trace to user logins on terminals at these 5 schools:


 * Formby High School (www.formbyhigh.org)
 * Ainsdale High School (www.ainsdalehope.co.uk)
 * Greenbank High School, Southport, Lancashire (http://www.greenbank.sefton.sch.uk/)
 * Marling School, Bath, Somerset
 * Estover Community College

Contact the relevant schools if you wish to discuss IP blocks - thanks. --Neil McCarthy (Internet for Learning) 21:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But we can't do much because you haven't provided the school's IP addresses. We block and warn the IPs, we usually don't send emails to the districts' headquarters. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see where we're being asked to do anything. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I read it as that he wants us to take action on the issue. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * These are the relevant IPs:


 * blocked 3 times - used by Formby High School library (http://www.formbyhigh.org)
 * blocked 16 times - used by Greenbank High School (http://www.greenbank.sefton.sch.uk/)
 * blocked 13 times - used in Formby High School library
 * blocked 10 times
 * blocked 6 times

What I am saying is, contact any of the 5 schools mentioned above to discuss blocking issues and repeat vandalism from students. That is the only way forward.

I have checked the firewall logs, and they trace back to the 5 schools above. --Neil McCarthy (Internet for Learning) 11:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Also be careful about blocking - see the IP's talk page for details. --Neil McCarthy (Internet for Learning) 11:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks & incivility on WP as well as offwiki meatpuppet recruitment
Will314159 has taken a consistently incivil position towards myself and other users. He has increasingly engaged in this derogatory attitude, including personal attacks. I also recently discovered that he had written similar statements online (outside Wikipedia), including requests for meatpuppets on the specific article that we both often edit. I suggest that he be blocked for 1-4 weeks in order that he might have a better appreciation for acceptable behaviour, though I ultimately leave that up to the relevant administrators' prerogative.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 20:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Online:
 * "you should try your hand at editing the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict there's an Israeli there user:Tewfik that's made 1,000 edits to the article and "owns" the article. He pushes his POV there unmercifully."
 * "There's an editor there called Tewfik, an Israeli, who owns the site, who has made over a 1,000 edits. He has been deleting my edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict" "I guess this is an invitation for neutral military types to get involved in these Wikipedia history and military conflict articles and bring some balance to them."
 * "The illustrious Tewfik of the 1,000 edits deleted it..." "Warning, this is a solicitation for more people to become involved as Wikipedia editors. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict"

General incivility, personal attacks, and assumption of bad-faith:
 * "why do you hate the Palestinians so much? It is a full time cottage industry for you. Going around WP burning them"
 * "It's a very elementary point but you don't get it. I feel for you"
 * "ISArIG, Isarig always always wikilawyering"
 * "ISARIG lives to abuse 3RR..."
 * "Will the man of a thousand edits (Tewfik) allow it? I sincerely doubt it. Maybe he will surprise us?"
 * (edit summary) "Isarig don't be boorish..."
 * "...your invidious POV not surprising Tewfik, the man of the thousand edits, and the owner of the July War article. For now, WP is your POV's playpen..."
 * "...whether the 10-12 editors that give Wikipedia its Likudnik slant continue to rule."


 * Although off-wiki actions aren;t technically punishable, this user invited further disruption of Wikipedia in addition to the disruption he himself has already caused here. Everything taken togehter, I have decided that a block of 10 days is appropriate. RyanG e rbil10 (Упражнение В!) 20:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think any off-wiki action that cases on-wiki disruption is can result in a block to help protect the wiki further. But blocks are never punishment anyway... ---J.S (t|c) 22:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Link spammer
User:Hrist is persistently spamming and has ignored warnings. Is this the correct place to report the issue? Administrator intervention against vandalism doesn't appear to include linkspam. <font face="Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet"> &mdash;Cel ithemis  23:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef by Grandmasterka . --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  23:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:SafeLibraries.org's inappropriate username (again)
For months, User:SafeLibraries.org has been using his username for the purpose of linkspam, as explained at. After several months of promising to change his username, he was recently blocked, but was then unblocked to request that his username be changed. However, the request he posted on Changing username was rejected because the new username he requested was also inappropriate. After being unblocked, User:SafeLibraries.org has continued to edit articles, thereby adding further linkspamming to their edit histories. Since this user has persistently refused to allow his username to be changed, I submit that his linkspamming needs to be stopped. John254 00:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Just block him until his username is actually changed. An admin can post the change name request to Changing username on his behalf. -- Cyde Weys 01:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * He can't block him, Cyde; he's not an admin. (I would, but I'm not going to be around for a few days, so won't be able to follow up.) &mdash;Cryptic 02:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Geez people. I just blocked him. Grand  master  ka  02:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Harassment on my User Page
Some months ago, I was forced to ban someone from the portion of the message board website, [www.nitcentral.com www.nitcentral.com], that I moderate for violating that site's rules governing civil behavior. This person responded by going on what another moderator described today as "a rampage", making countless off-topic posts on other boards to attack me or otherwise complain about his ban, and eventually attack the other visitors to the site as well, even after he was repeatedly informed that that site's owner had reviewed the issue and upheld his partial ban, and that he was to cease making off-topic posts to reignite that issue. His repeated refusal to do so, and insistence that he was a victim fighting for justice incurred the ire of just about every other moderator and visitor to the site in the process. He even attempted to get our server/host to shut down the site, and even followed me here to Wikipedia, where he created a single-use identity, Rwetruck, for the sole purpose of participating in an AfD to get an article deleted simply because I had created it, and lash out at nitcentral. Just today, another moderator banned Rwetruck from the site's "Kitchen Sink" (the area where visitors can discuss administrative issues pertaining to the site), for repeatedly ignoring his past warnings to cease this behavior, and informed me via email that Rwetruck flooded his email to excoriate me.

Now, Rwetruck is harassing me on my User Page, having made three posts just today, asking me to contact him, and demanding an "apology", and is even addressing me using my real first and last name, despite the fact that he knows I do not use my real name on this site. I would appreciate suggestions. Thanks. Nightscream 02:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Edits deleted, editor warned, hopefully dealt with. &mdash;Cryptic 03:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This guy is back
This guy was suspended for vandalism - and he's back at it again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rudolf_Steiner&diff=83333574&oldid=83331644

User:Shotwell abusing Wikipedia procedures
Shotwell has accused several editors of all being sockpuppets in retaliation for a question being raised about his relationship with another editor, both of whom are involved in various disputes on the following articles: Advocates for Children in Therapy, Candace Newmaker, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, and Bowlby (User:Sarner was blocked for a brief period of time for similiar conduct on the Bowlby article). In addition, Shotwell has been engaged in a series of edit wars and revert wars and other uncivil actions that are not consistent with building consensus or reducing disputes. There is a mediator involved, but the mediator is new and seems over his head; he's not taken any action or made any recommendations and the issue is beyond the one page he "signed on" for. DPeterson talk 03:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Asad Aleem at it again?

 * A few months back, created a heckuva lot of hoax articles, as well as vandalizing established articles with fallacious information about his imaginary fame.  Since then he has quieted down a bit, but recently, he has edited his user page and the user page of suspected sockpuppet  to appear like legitimate Wikipedia articles.  Another user that claims relation,  has appeared, claiming to be "Bret"'s father.  He also claims to be dead, which would make it difficult to edit Wikipedia.  While all this stuff is confined to the userspace (and hence not really disrupting Wikipedia), it makes me a bit nervous.  Danny Lilithborne 03:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Calton harrasing me and unnecesary tags on Alex Machacek
A User:Calton has been unnecessarily harrasing me by posting person attacks on my talk page and tagging the article I created. I created the article, then out of nowhere came User:Calton and tagged the article as advert here. He mentioned in the summary the word - "Jawdropping". I removed the word and removed the tag. Then I informed him about me removing the tag. He retorted with this on my talk page - Personal Attack 1. He said "Repack that attitude, son, it's not going to get you far." He mentioned two more specific POVs, one which I promptly changed and the other wasn't a POV, for which I included a citation. I again told him that I'd removed the tags and rectified the matter. Again he comes and put the tags - this time he puts NPOV tag. He posts on my talk page another personal attck. He says "It's said often to me, kiddo, by trolls, the dishonest, the incompetent, and the fanatical." I add more references and remove the tags. He again comes and tags the article here. He then attacks me again - Third personal attack. He writes "What IS your major malfunction?". I ask him twice, to mention the specific instances of POV, so I can remove/rectify them, but he doesn't reply.

These seem to be done in a totally bad faith. The User:Calton is not interested in removing POV or doing any good. It seems he wants to put the tags just for the sake of putting 'em and harrassing others.

-- N R S | T/M\B 05:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The article read neutral to me, so I've removed the NPOV tag. I've left the cleanup tag, and, while it may be a little superfluous, it's not harming the article, and may attract more attention to improve it.  Hopefully this resolves things, and I'd encourage discussion on Talk:Alex Machacek on further ways to improve the article -- Samir धर्म  05:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like a perfectly good musician article to me, I don't see what the big deal is. Grand  master  ka  05:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, so bald -- and unsourced -- statements of "jawdropping" debuts and "extraordinary chops" in the first graf is standard for musician articles. Fanboys, take note. Meanwhile, I need to go make a few changes of my own in a few articles.


 * Then I informed him... "Informed"? I quote from the message: "...Don't sabotage other's hard work. By the way, Alex Machacek is a leading fusion guitarist and he is in no way related to me. [Where THAT came from, I don't know] Where does the idea of advert comes in ? I am removing the tag. If you have any issues, please tell me first. Don't tag articles just like that."
 * Between the bad-faith attitude, his own initial personal attacks, complete misunderstanding about the purpose of tags, his peculiar projection regarding motivation (it never occurred to me that he was related UNTIL NOW), and ownership issues, he's got nothing to complain about. --Calton | Talk 06:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Before saying things like these and attacking other users as fanboys etc., the user must first take a look at my contribs. I am registered since last year. This is nothing but undue harrasment of other users. By the way, the idea of relation came after you tagged the article as advert. An advertisement would be done only by those people who are related to the subject or the subject themselves. And that's why I said that. I reiterate again, rectify your attitude, instead of treating everyone as trolls, wannabes, etc. (in your own words). -- N R S | T/M\B 07:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Accusations of harassment have no place here, either, so don't even ask him to "rectify [his] attitude" when clearly you're also being uncivil. – Chacor 07:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I don't have any problem. I won't contribute the article from now on if that's what you people want. Thanks. -- N R S | T/M\B 07:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Don't sabotage other's hard work" isn't a personal attack. It's reactionary, but that isn't the same thing. Also, NRS, there's no reason to stop contributing. No one asked you to; the first response to your report was positive, then you got a negative response from the person the report was about (which is normal), and then a statement was made about the nature of the discussion. There's a dispute here, but you're not in trouble. Just ride it out. --Masamage 07:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I am sorry to have said that. Wikipedia is very close to me now. I will certainly contribute. I know these things happen. Thanks, everyone. -- N R S | T/M\B 09:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Don't sabotage other's hard work" isn't a personal attack. It's reactionary, but that isn't the same thing. Utter crap. Tell me, did you pick up your nuclear-powered hair-splitter at Home Depot or WalMart? --Calton | Talk 04:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Irony abounds. --Masamage 05:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User Page Harrassment, Uncivil Behaviour, Excessive Reverting and More
I've never seen anything like this, or at least been harrassed on here like this. The user above (and other IPs all beginning with 63.17) has posted psuedo vandalism-warnings on my talk page, reverted legitimate edits from other contributors on the Designer Whey Protein article in an edit war with myself and two other users (most notably David D.). This user was improperly using tags on the Biological Value article, which is fine, however he reverted attempts at fixing these sections using proper templates and the posted "vandalism" and "admin" notices on my talk page after reverting perfectly legitimate edits back after I'd fixed them. Finally this user is attempting to draw admin Glen S into this by claiming that Glen knows about him, and by referencing/baiting him in his edit summaries. Then the user left the following edit on another editors talk page regarding this issue - suggesting that I may be sockpuppeteering the entire thing. . The last instance of the users beligerant behaviour here on my talk page and in edit summaries here: where he's trolling.

Sorry this is such an unusual request. I'm attempting to keep a cool head, however my patience is limited. I've asked the user to stop, however providing boiler plate warnign is useless because of the mulitple IP addresses that are being used. And as you can see, from the last edit to my talk page, this user is not interested in doing anything other than what they want. Thanks in advance for any help. Yankees76 21:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Update - the baiting continues today - from yet a third IP, though it's clearly the same user. See edit summary . Yankees76 20:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:WickedHorse
This new user seems to be "wiki stalking" me. Their first edit to the Volkstaat article (16:06, 15 October 2006, ) was merely to move a section I worked on to the bottom of the article and this directly following a difference of opinion (diff: ) the preceding days on Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup. I tried to discuss it, but the user now also edited another unrelated article (Valkiri) – that I created – diff. Deon Steyn 06:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

DaffyDuck619
DaffyDuck619 (talk • contribs • [ page moves ] • block user • [ block log ]) has been an issue for a few months now. He has generally been edit warring at and  (the latter of which he has a Mediation case involvement. Here are just a few examples from the last few hours at John Cena about how these things generally occur: While this was up at AIV, Yamaguchi stated: "Endorse block of the person above, perhaps a community ban is in order, but that should be discussed somewhere else. Yamaguchi先生 07:26, 24 October 2006" Certainly, something must be done about this editor. Golbez had indefblocked him, pending that he come back and discuss things on his user talk (which he has), but he has just begun to repeat the same edits, the same disruption, and other such nonsense. Right now, he is sitting out a 48h 3RR block. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) 02:04, October 24, 2006
 * 2) 02:17, October 24, 2006
 * 3) 02:23, October 24, 2006 "See talk page"
 * 4) 02:26, October 24, 2006 "Revered edits back, see talk page"
 * 5) 02:30, October 24, 2006 "Somebody must be a sockpuppet of lil crazy thing"

User:1QUIner
Can someone please investigate, he's making some strange edits to talk pages. --SimonTheFox 11:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have just reverted all those. But the history of his userpage is fascinating. In his very first edit he suspects himself of being a Sock of JzG. He later changes the name of who he is supposed to be a sock of. Definetly a vandal only account. Agathoclea 11:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And already blocked. Agathoclea 11:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)