Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive155

A coincidence ?
Today I noticed that someone had posted a PROD tag on an article that I have contributed to. Clicking through to see who pasted it and then seeing this persons contributions revealed that the person registered a few days back and their only contributions are nominations for deletion of articles that I have been contributing to. Have a look: Special:Contributions/Carl_Timothy_Jones. Now I'm not sure what's going on and what to do. Can anyone help? WietsE 23:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I am not "targetting" you. I explained that 1) I have previously edited anonymously 2) Found your article via Random article and 3) Found your other articles via your list on you user page. I have merely followed the correct procedure for listing articles which I believe cover non-notable people or groups (which, by the way, you seem to be directly involved with).
 * When I had earlier explained that I had found your articles from your user page, you then proceeded to directly remove them here. A strange thing to do, perhaps you could explain why. Were you trying to make me look like a liar? You seem to have immediately assumed bad faith, by raising my contributions rather than arguing your case here.
 * Furthermore you have now changed you initial accusatory heading to one that is merely sarcastic. Carl Timothy Jones 23:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've indef-blocked User:Carl Timothy Jones as a disruption-only account. User's only edits are to tag WietsE's articles for deletion. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:West wikipedia
The second line of this userpage looks to me like a threat. Should I (or anyone else willing to do so) go ahead and remove it? Scob e ll302 23:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The part about "no longer uses Wikipedia" is garbage, as there was more vandalism after it was put there. User's been temp blocked and the User Talk page (where s/he was trying to use the same tactic to eliminate warning messages) has been protected. Block will be up in a few hours and we'll see for how long. Fan-1967 23:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The threat should go, of course.
 * Beyond that, though, I thought there was kind of a consensus against blocking and page-protecting for "removing warnings" as the warnings are available in the page history. Not sure if that applies when vandalism is still ongoing, though.
 * While we're on the subject of this editor, is "West wikipedia" an acceptable username given that names implying official connection with the project are barred by the username policy? Newyorkbrad 23:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware there was a consensus abour removing warnings. Could you please point me to where it is? Khoikhoi 00:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've seen seemingly dozens of discussions on this issue, and the weight of opinion has been against blocking just for removing warnings. Having just looked at the centralized discussion again, "consensus" may have been too strong a word. Any thoughts on the username?


 * I have removed the offending line from the person's User page. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Indef-blocked. The account name is clearly inappropriate (remember, Wikipedia is a copyright of the Wikimedia Foundation), and besides, it just isn't on the level for that guy to be claiming one's account will be deleted for reverting his edits. -- Cyde Weys 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what I figured. Now I suggest that his talkpage can be replaced with the username blocked template, which will moot the other issue. (Technicality: "trademark", not "copyright.") Newyorkbrad 01:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

My talk page User_talk:81.155.178.248
Can something please be done about the over-zealous editor who keeps reverting my page? Sadly I am unable to edit his talk page to discuss the matter with him, and he ignores the messages I leave on my talk page. This version gives a concise version of events, showing I was incorrectly warned. As such, I am perfectly entitled to remove that warning. Many thanks 81.155.178.248 00:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Has ben reported to WP:AIV for multiple removal of warnings, vandalism to his talk page--Hu12 00:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC) and 3RR.

As far as I can tell, the IP user did not vandalize, hence blanking them was appropriate, although contentious. I have blanked the page to save everyone some grief. Move along, everybody... --210physicq  (c ) 00:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree, Resolved --Hu12 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:80.136.165.227
This user insulted user:jadger on jadger´s talk page: ''MeinGott, sind alle Pfälzer so doof wie Du? Peinlich, das alles'' "My god, are all people from the Palatinate as dumb as you? Embarrassing, all of this"--Tresckow 01:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * besides this he seems zto have messe around with this site: [] --Tresckow 02:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Warn, then, if user persists, report to WP:AIV. Patstuarttalk 06:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Another overlooked thread?
It is suggested that Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, above, should receive attention. Carcharoth 01:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Where did you get that awkward, stilted, horrible, passive-voice, weaselly phrasing? Oh, never mind. Newyorkbrad 02:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I find that situation very confusing. Deltabeignet seems to have attempted a breaching experiment of sorts, which certainly isn't cool.  But then the accusations start getting weird--he is an impostor editing as himself in order to edit anonymously and then revert reversions of the anonymous edits which aren't really him anyway but someone else pretending to be him. . . ? Chick Bowen 04:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Penis images
Can someone explain what happened over the past few minutes? Many pages were filled with a repeated image Image:Right.jpg. Dmn € &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It was vandalism at Template:Please check ISBN - see Talk:Macedonia (terminology) to credit the guy who tracked it down. Carcharoth 01:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)It's fixed now. 165.21.155.11 vandalized the high-risk Please check ISBN template and it carried over to many articles. Also, the template is now protected.  Nish kid 64  01:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

God I hate the Commons. We should have been able to delete that image as soon as it appeared everywhere. Dmn € &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 01:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We could upload some milder image locally using that same image name. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was on Template:Please check ISBN. Can we block a range of IPs?  These were from 165.21.155.10 and 165.21.155.11.  I suspect he's also User:Fairxento as well (see the edits to Down Syndrome from 21:49 to 21:51 on December 5), but it may just be a shared computer.  In the past few days, he's put genitalia on the front page (on two separate occasions, with two separate images), and he's given Bill Gates and George W. Bush Down Syndrome.  But the other edits seem very constructive!  What to do?  tiZom(2¢)  01:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It would seem prudent to alter the procedure for featured articles, by protecting any template that appears on the page. Dmn € &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 01:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like it's going to come to that, sadly. It will take a considerable amount of time to do each day, too. But considering we see this kind of vandalism more days than not lately, it looks like we might have to do it. --W.marsh 01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He added the image to ref label as well and thus had himself back-uped when the first of the two templates were reverted (which was ref label, and you don't want to know how stressing it was to look through 20 templates, finding the vandalism, removing it, and than seeing the articles still having penises all over them...). Anyway, shouldn't templates such as those be protected on a regular basis? They should not generally be edited, and ref label hadn't been edited since April this year before he came along. – Elisson • T • C • 01:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to say that this incident may have convinced me. I have been looking at the dozens of templates on a country page, such as AGO and Country alias Angola, and shudder at the thought of trying to locate a piece of vandalism in this haystack.  These templates are extensively transcluded and almost never edited and I see very little reason why they shouldn't be protected as a matter of course.  - BanyanTree 02:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe it doesn't have to come to blocking everything. Is it possible for an admin to block a page from viewing?  This vandalism was well thought out, and took a while to get fixed.  If an admin could stop all views on a page while they worked on reverting it, I think that would be helpful...  tiZom(2¢)  02:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop all views of Today's Featured Article (the main target)? I doubt that would go down well – Gurch 02:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The image of choice is now Image:Smegma_Penis01.jpg --Bshrode 03:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The image says it links to two articles, but I can't seem to find it at all.— Řÿūłóñģ ( 竜龍 ) 03:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Use MediaWiki:Bad image list to prevent the use of an image on all but select appropriate articles. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have (temporarlly) put all images listed in the commons category into the bad image list. We no doubt will want to remove them all again soon but maybe for now it might help... ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

recent changes in Template namespace <- please keep an eye on this. --74.109.173.23 03:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I also caught them at template:Loc (though the image was Image:Image_of_frenulum.jpg). careful monitoring is needed for a few hours. these are sneaky. Circeus 04:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

By my count, about 11 of the templates within today's Main Page FA, Macedonia (terminology) were vandalized. I know there's still discussion on whether the Main Page FA itself should have protection or not, but there's really no reason that the templates on the Main Page FA, or even Templates in general, shouldn't have semi-protection. A new IP user making a good faith edit really has no business mucking around in the Templates.--DaveOinSF 04:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Template:Mk icon needs protection. Its just been targeted by the same vandal. Gdo01 07:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Protected. Luna Santin 07:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why does Commons even HAVE so many pictures of penises? And can it not set up some "blacklist", and have images on that list not be automatically fetched from commons when a local copy doesn't exist? Seems to me that would solve a lot of problems – Gurch 08:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That sort of defeats the purpose of having Commons, though, and it would presumably be new development. I did add all the images in the category (there may still be others) to the blacklist as a temporary measure (thank you AWB for making generating that list easy!). Other hardworking admins (Centrx and BanyanTree) reviewed the list and made it permanent. That really should help. Don't forget there ARE legitimate uses for some of the images, after all...) ++Lar: t/c 12:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Template vandalism still happening?
From this it looks like the template vandalism is still going on. Can someone protect all the templates used in this article, please? Plus the templates used in the templates... Carcharoth 12:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Found another at Template:IUCN2006, used on 4903 pages, including the 1.5 millionth article. I got geni to sprotect. --Rory096 01:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Other discussions on this topic
Other discussions on this topic are here, here, here and here. Please add more if you find them. Someone may wish to consolidate all these disparate discussions into one location. Carcharoth 12:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, we've been seeing a lot of more of this as of late: template vandalism to the FA (and often penis images as well). I wonder if it's the same idiot, or if they're somehow connected (hope no one said this before).-Patstuarttalk 14:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was getting the same problems with Template:Lang-ru last night, which caused penis images to appear on various Russian articles. I am hoping most of the damage got fixed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And he strikes again. I just saw a penis on a template linked to by template:see, which is template:esoteric. This guy's making us protect every template in existence. Patstuarttalk 11:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Child's details
I have heard a few rumblings about this in the past so I thought I'd better post it here. A user, User:Jonaz5197 has posted his personal details on his user page and also uploaded an image of himself Image:ImageName(022).jpg. As he states he is in 4th grade that would make him around 10 years old (if my research is correct) - that would also mean that his username could contain his D.O.B? What is the normal course of action for this? Thanks, Localzuk(talk) 12:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * His DOB is in his username: he's also put it in a userbox on his page. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * His DOB would be 4197, so not in his username. -- Majo  rly  12:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Cute kid. One would assume that he has had a parent or guardian's help uploading/editing. Might be advisable to leave a notice on his talk page with the leader "For your mum or dad - please show them and ask them to respond" or similar. We could then warn them of the pitfalls of having a childs details on wiki. However if it is being released with his parents permission then I'm not too sure that it is wiki's problem. Viridae Talk 12:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, however it might be a better idea for someone else to do it as it is looking a little like I am attacking everything about his edits at the moment and I am feeling uneasy about that. Could someone else post the message please? Thanks, Localzuk(talk) 12:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I deleted the potentially insecure details. El_C 12:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy should provide guidance on what to do Nil Einne 20:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you El C and Nil Einne. That was very helpful. -Localzuk(talk) 21:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe I've been in migraineland too long to assume good faith, but doesn't it strike anyone as odd that this person's birthday is April Fool's Day? Anchoress 07:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Honestly, no. Given how large we have become, I would not be surprised if everyday, one of our editors will celebrate a birthday. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Propaganda" trolls back
Looks like the nice folks involved in the "White House Propaganda" thing are still at it; I just removed the manifesto from the Village Pump (News), which was added within about three edits of it being unprotected. Haven't investigated further yet, but be on the lookout. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Again? ...sigh...Doc  Tropics  20:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Again. Patstuarttalk 06:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:The suicide forest
This editor's userpage indicates that he has created his accounts for the purpose of "trolling and inciting drama." With a series of inquiries about the deletion of the ED pages, he appears to have started. Perhaps someone should have a word with him. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a candidate for speedy deletion. Mackensen (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It could simply be a crap attempt at humour, and given the total inability of ED denizens to be funny it doesn't seem that suspicious. There are attempts at good faith edits at least from the account, so I don't feel a block is justified at this point. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's still a username policy violation, and should either be changed or blocked outright. Essjay ( Talk )  06:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We might have a related user (User:Alakazam9891) whose user page I had to remove maybe seven fair use images from.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 08:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Tommypowell
This appears to be an account that is solely used for holocaust denial. For example, his first edit in Talk:Rudi Ball is:


 * "How was this Jew allowed to live in Germany all through the war playing hockey in the time of the so called Holocaust?"

The edit summary of his very next edit reads-


 * "Another nail in the Holocaust myth?"

Many of his other edits consist of showing up at talk pages and making strange comments about discredited racial theories.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever disgusting his comments are, Admins' noteboard is not for witch hunt. Did he do any real harm to articles or trolled a talk? Not to say that his holocaust denial is very naive, and the simplest solution would be don't feed trolls. `'mikkanarxi 09:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would think that a single purpose troll account would be blocked, he hasn't added anything to the encyclopedia so I don't see how the witch hunt allusion is applicable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User: BooyakaDell, sock of user:JB196?
User:JB196 was banned in September for edit warring over tags and creating conflicts on numerous pages that have to do with professional wrestling. He continued to vandalized pages as an anonymous user to the point that some articles had to be semi-protected several times over. User:BooyakaDell registered in Mid-November, and has virtually the same modus operandi, editwarring over tags and adding PROD's to wrestling articles he thinks are not notable (not a valid reason for PROD'ing on several articles). Due to length of time between original user being banned, and this possible sockpuppet account being created, checkuser was not an option, although there is still a suspected sockpuppet account page. Any suggestions? Thanks! SirFozzie 14:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Completely agree with this, and thanks for adding the incident, Fozzie! If my view is worth anything, I believe that this is definitely User:JB196. For those who are interested, I put a note about this in W:RFI (I think that's the right acronym!) as well under section 4 (registered users). Curse of Fenric 21:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments on my talk page (am Adopter of BooyakaDell - WP:ADOPT) - User talk:Lethaniol. For the record I don't think that dealing with the Sockpuppet case is the way to go - as a Checkuser has proved not workable - see Requests for checkuser/Case/JB196. Cheers Lethaniol 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I must note that BooyakaDell signs posts the same way as JB196 did, with no space between the full stop and the signature (i.e. This.–– Lid(Talk) 11:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)) which along with the MO seems to be more evidence of sockpuppetry. –– Lid(Talk) 11:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The evidence is growing. Thanks for that observation, lid. I consider the checkuser situation to be irrelevant. If BooyakaDell is behaving in the same way as JB196, he should be treated the same way - sockpuppet or otherwise. Curse of Fenric 05:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * After having his claims of non-notability soundly dismissed on Glamour Boy Shane and Thunder%28wrestler%29, BooyayaDell has start adding as many other tags as possible, in the same way JB196 used to do 81.155.178.248 06:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And it's off to the Mediation Cabal as Booyaka/JB continues to rampage across articles. Not sure why he hasn't been blocked, he's getting obvious now. 06:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See Cabal debate at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-11 BooyakaDell an Admin's opinion there would I think be helpful. Lethaniol 15:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since things quickly devolved on the Mediation Cabal request, Lethaniol asked that a RfC be started to deal with the edit war that's sprung up (tempers are pretty hot), but I would think that would be seperate from any possible WP:SOCK issue. The RfC is at []

Buddhism in modern India-related sockpuppetry
I stumbled across this (really, I was running a check on a completely different user, so it was an odd occurrence) case of major sockpuppetry related to the ongoing edit war at Buddhism in modern India. I can say with a high level of certainty based on the IP evidence that, , , , , , , , and are one person. Note the two impostor accounts. This is potentially a workplace IP, so meatpuppetry is a possibility, but based on the nature of the editing, it looks like a single person to me (scrutiny welcome). Dmcdevit·t 11:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This user has been the cause of a lot of edit-wars. I have indef-blocked all the socks/attack users, and also blocked Pkularni for a month as this is a first time offence. I have also made a post at the Indian noticeboard as there were some discussions about the article in question there. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that this was previously reported fir checkuser as Requests for checkuser/Case/Bodhidhamma (but declined). Thatcher131 12:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Great. I was thought of filing a Checkuser for, and . utcursch | talk 12:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also Dmcdevit helped me nab Requests for checkuser/Case/Green23 and his neo-Buddhist socks. THey are related to this case as well. Baka man  06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Green was on 216.254.121.169, so it's unlikely they're related, as they're on different continents. Dmcdevit·t 07:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He is avoiding his block by using a sock puppet account User:Indianbuddhist. See the most recent edits and. Determined chap, that, but it's fairly obvious that he is a sock given the name ("buddhist" at the end, same as User:Ambedkaritebuddhist or User:Shrilankabuddhist and tendentious editing on Dalit Buddhist movement ). Hkelkar 12:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Great job done by you. All these low-caste Hindus are harrassing me as Shudra every time. They don't understand Hinduism. Thanks for your help. Innocent123 16:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Brian.Burnell
See User talk:Notinasnaid. I'm not sure exactly what's going on, but it looks like an incensed user (Brian.Burnell) has possibly contacted the president of another user's (Flammingo) university, seeking to force the latter's expulsion over a dispute over what looks to be ... image tagging over a satirical map. Certainly a ridiculous situation that needs to be defused. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 20:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Off-wiki harassment of this nature is totally unacceptable user conduct demanding immediate action. At a minimum, the user must be strongly reminded of the policy forbidding off-wiki harassment and a promise elicited that such action will not be repeated. In the absence of such a promise, this user should not be welcome to continue editing. Newyorkbrad 22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I left this message on his talk page:
 * You left the following message on User talk:Notinasnaid: What there appears to be though is a campaign of harrassment and blatant, demonstrable lies, possibly mounted partly from the IP addresses and the computers of the University of Göttingen. The President of the University, Prof Dr Kurt von Figura, has been contacted, and I understand that inquiries are to be made to establish the truth. This is an extremely serious violation of Wikipedia policies. Off-wiki harassment of other users is strictly forbidden under the no personal attacks policy. As a first step, I'd like to see you apologize to User:Flammingo for your actions. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought post-apology, we could consider next steps. No apology = long block, possibly turning it over to ArbCom for banning. Apology = a workout plan. I'd like to think that this user was just being a blowhard, and hasn't actually contacted anyone. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And I reminded him that it is not acceptable to reveal person information about other editors. Rockpock  e  t  02:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Brian.Burnell has returned, but only to remove all warnings from his userpage. Still no answer to the question about his conduct. I would like to hear some other opinions on when and whether a block is appropriate, or if this is something I should be turning over to ArbCom. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Tricky one (which is why I waited for another admin to take the initiative ;). Since the off-wiki damage is already done (or not, if he is all talk and no action), I would suggest another stern warning detailing the action that will be taken should he not engage. If that doesn't focus his mind then I would propose moving for a ban. Rockpock  e  t  05:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Brian's actions are indefensible. Bullying of this nature, revealing personal information and threatening to get a user kicked out of their university is appalling and should be met with zero tolerance. He should be banned, immediately, and permanently.  He is clearly unwilling to engage in any kind of resolution amicably (considering the multiple removals of all the warnings about what he did), and I'm happy to see him gone.  Any objections?  Proto ::  ►  11:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Definitely an immediate indef block and community ban, no further questions asked. Mind you, there's no chance he would ever succeed with his threats; German universities don't keep tight disciplinary watch over their students and would never dream of intervening against a student in such a case. But the intention alone of harming the other guy is what matters. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (deindent) I have blocked User:Brian.Burnell indefinitely for the above (this comment, to be exact). If anyone objects, please feel free to amend this ban.  Proto ::  ►  12:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Michael I of Romania - possible sock puppeting?
I'm beginning to suspect that User:Carbunar, User:Parisian2006, User:Stefanp, and User:John Mathis are all the same person. I may be wrong, but all of them focus on the same small set of articles related to the Romanian royal family, and all seem to share an identical POV which I would have thought quite idiosyncratic - anti-communist and anti-monarchist. Both Stefan and Parisian have cited Wikipedia's "undue weight" policy in a rather odd way to justify putting (what is, in my opinion) undue weight on their idiosyncratic POV. So if anyone could check and see if they're all the same person, that'd be nice. Also, if anyone would like to more generally intervene, that'd be good to know. john k 22:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * User John Kenney, in the name of his unreferenced pro-King Michael POVs, keeps vandalizing the Michael I of Romania article. He keeps: 1. eliminating referenced statements, using unacceptable sources (so-called emails, which we all know can be forged) (see, for instance, the 08:02, 10 December 2006 change to the article, explained as follows: "Tom Gallagher most certainly did not say that any such offer was actually made, as he clarified in an email to a wikipedian") ; 2. re-inserting POV and Expert editor warnings, claiming that the article has too many anti-King Michael edits/"POVs", in utter disregard of the NPOV-Undue Weight policy (see the reasons explained in Talk - NPOV and undue weight); 3. blanking a properly referenced statement, which runs counter to his minority pro-Michael views. Please, stop his vandalisms and abusive edits, which try to aggresively impose the minority view on King Michael. Thank you! Stefanp 23:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the chance that John Kenney, a longstanding and excellent contributor who has shown only a moderate interest ever in Romanian matters, is very unlikely to be vandalising here.

I will cross-post this to the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board in order to try to get a larger number of knowledgable people to keep an eye on the article. - Jmabel | Talk 04:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Being an avowed monarchist, as his contributions clearly show, could make an otherwise excellent editor and even administrator, like John Kenney, disregard the Wikipedia rules in order to defend the honor of a fallen and contested monarch. Stefanp 05:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not a monarchist. I find monarchy and royal genealogy interesting, but I don't see how that makes me a monarchist.  john k 16:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Come off it John, interest in such a reactionary field is proof positive of your monarchical tendencies–you can't fool me!--John's loyal sockpuppet 17:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not a sockpuppeter. Stefanp, however, is. In addition to the puppets John has named we must also add. All of these are blocked indefinitely now. I've left Stefanp unblocked for the time being. Thanks for playing, Mackensen (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Overlooked thread?
It is suggested that Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, above, should receive attention. Newyorkbrad 01:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is noted that the topic, above, has now received attention. :p Proto ::  ►  16:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Notenglish" vandal
Someone has been repeatedly creating throwaway accounts to systematically (and vandalistically) replace notenglish with db-notenglish. Then, of course, an admin comes along and innocently deletes the article. Please, when deleting articles so tagged, make sure that there really is already such an article in the relevant foreign language Wikipedia. Oh, and ideas for stopping this vandal are welcome. Further discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Pages needing translation into English. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Idea - create a new subcategory "Foreign language pages for speedy deletion," then change the db-notenglish template to place pages there as well. This would make policing that subcategory a lot easier. I wandered over to C:CSD, but they're all jumbled together, so picking the foreign-language ones out wasn't easy. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Which raises the question of whether it might be useful to have separate categories for other CSD criteria. I believe currently the only one singled out is db-attack. -- Fan-1967 15:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly support the idea of subcategorizing them. Different CSD criteria involve different research processes for the admin examining the CSD tag. I would think that the backlog would clear more quickly if admins felt 1) they could attack the specific CSD criteria they're comfortable investigating and 2) they could clear out a whole subcategory, something I find very satisfying :) | Mr. Darcy talk 16:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User Sanghak repeatedly uploading images with no source information
I hope I'm posting this in the right place. Sanghak has contributed a lot to Wikipedia, but keeps uploading images without specifying any source information. Most of them are copies of images from Flags of the World and worldstatesmen.org, and few (if any) are original creations. He's been warned about this repeatedly on his talk page, but has never acknowledged or responded to these warnings. Now that his images are starting to disappear due to the lack of source information, he's started uploading them again. I'm beginning to wonder if this user simply hasn't figured out how to access his talk page yet. I can't email him because his account settings won't allow it. Is there any other way of drawing this user's attention to the problem? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 11:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24h and a message left. Please report back if this does not do the trick. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ban me!
This IP is from a school where nothing useful will come. I'm honestly ashamed of what they do to the Wiki. Nothing good will come of having this IP unbanned. If you don't believe me Special:Contributions/158.123.138.50. The only useful edit is one where I forgot to log in. The last edit (of Bob Saget) uses my name even though I didn't edit it. If you could remove that edit too, I'd appreciate it (it's not that big a deal, just exceptionally stupid.) Thanks in advance for any action against this IP. -158.123.138.50 13:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We do not ban indefinetly IP addresses. What you can do is to create an account and stop using that IP if possible. -- Szvest  [[Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg|10px]] Wiki me up ®  13:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There seems to have been a fair number of warnings issued to the IP. Would a soft block prohibiting anon posting but allowing account creation not solve the problem? --Spartaz 14:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes but i don't see the need for a soft block for now as there's been no vandalism from the IP since a week now. I'd do that if there'd be further vandalism. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest  [[Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg|10px]] <font style="background: orange">Wiki me up ®  14:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Bestlyriccollection
Could somebody who can read Chinese take a look at this? The user's previous userpage was deleted via MFD as being improper. This one has an external link and a search button, all in Chinese. ( Radiant ) 13:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The description of the external link is correct, it is a Wiki that mirrors the Chinese Wikipedia. The thing that looked like a search box was an input box asking you to create a dictionary entry (I think, I'm too lazy to look up all characters) for a Wu dictionary. Unfortunately the create page link goes to the English Wikipedia. In particular, clicking the button without entering anything led to the "Editing Main Page" screen. I have removed the inputbox as it was misleading, but don't see a problem with the rest (note: I didn't read the MfD). Kusma (討論) 16:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-obvious linkspam
I noticed someone adding links of no immediate relevance to articles - it looks like articles of vague genealogical interest are being linked to www.tribalpages.com/tribes/, with the varying. If you do a search on "www.tribalpages.com/tribes/", you'll see what I mean (Search done for you here:. I'm not sure if this is vandalism, newbies, or something else. Could someone take a look, and give me their opinion?  I'm sufficiently unsure to not just simply remove the references on sight. - WLDtalk 14:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove them all. A geneology site written by nn relatives and descendants is linkspam. Not RS; not even relevant, and WP:NOT for promotion. Rem per WP:EL. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Allow me to modify that - on Paliath Achan it actually is relevant, and correctly placed. Whether the site constitutes a RS for that article I will leave for othes to decide. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Use Special:Linksearch to find these links, Special:Search can miss some. There are a bunch but a lot are from user and talk pages. 67.117.130.181 15:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

SndrAndrss again
This was discussed earlier - User:SndrAndrss has been making various disputed changes to templates used in sports articles, and has despite many many many attempts to communicate with them - declined to reply or explain himself. He was blocked for 48 hours, and is back to his usual ways after this. I have given him another warning. I suggest if he disregards this, we indefinitely block him, with instructions on how to appeal this block, by agreeing to attempt to communicate with other users. Thoughts? Morwen - Talk 14:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * First discussion and subsequent block. I don't think an indef block would be fair. What i'd suggest is to block him for a period of 2 weeks because of tendious editing. Obvious cranks and aggressively disruptive editors may be blocked or banned after a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians agrees that their edits constitute persistent violations of fundamental policies. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest   [[Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg|10px]] <font style="background: orange">Wiki me up ®  14:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mean indef block forever, I just mean an indef block until he leave a message on his talk page asking us to lift the block! I don't think a 2 week block will have any effect other than to make him wait 2 weeks.  But if you think that's better, then ok.  Morwen - Talk 15:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the idea. However, the problem with that is that there's no policy which backs it. He's free to not to answer any question. If we'd block we'd do it because of his tendious editing. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest  [[Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg|10px]] <font style="background: orange">Wiki me up ®  15:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * After he'd made an edit to the Estonian country flag to remove the border (which he has been asked not to a lot), I've blocked for a week, with a message clearly outlining that if he discusses things he will be unblocked.  Hopefully it gets through this time.  Morwen - Talk 17:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well done Morwen. I support the block. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest  [[Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg|10px]] <font style="background: orange">Wiki me up ®  17:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Embargo: Anti-Semitic User Page
User Embargo has an image from the anti-semitic book Judaism Without Embellishments adorning their User page. This image and the book it is taken from is racist and not appropriate for display on Wikipedia. Abe Froman 15:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Withdraw, the page has been blanked. Abe Froman 15:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am dealing w/ that. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest  [[Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg|10px]] <font style="background: orange">Wiki me up ®  16:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Bec-Thorn-Berry
While running through today's Afd debates, I came across this new user who seems to just be mass voting "delete" on everything with no reasons listed. I noticed he was warned about it on his talk page, but I'm not entirely confident these edits were done in good faith. Should the votes be striked out or anything of that nature? --- RockMFR 15:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd make a comment directly below his !vote and say that the above statement was from a suspected single-purpose account. Strike it out if you want (I probably would). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't strike them out, the closing admin can make that judgement. But by all means note that all the user does is vote delete in every AFD.  If they have failed to explain their reasons, most admins will ignore it, anyway.  Proto ::  ►  16:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Moby Dick
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #dedaca; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The block has been reviewed by two uninvolved sysops and upheld. The rest of this appears to be commons drama from a user who was indefinitely blocked there. Please take that somewhere else. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick (clarification)
 * Special:Contributions/Moby_Dick
 * commons:Special:Contributions/Moby_Dick
 * commons:Special:Contributions/Moby_Dick

I'd like to have a second opinion on this. Is the recent edit of Moby Dick a violation of the arbcom remedies (also mind the clarification)? This was his first edit since November 13 2006.

On November 12-13 he was same time active on commons and he wasn't uploading images. Instead his focus seemed to be me. Aside from that he wasn't active at all since august neither here on en.wiki or on commons.wiki.

-- Cat out 18:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well? -- Cat out 00:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this would constitute "harassing or stalking" you unless he continues with more posts. One post of "makes for interesting reading!" doesn't seem to be either harrassment or stalking. Anyone else want to comment? ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  00:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your comment would be right to any new/old user without the arbcom remedies Moby has. Besides that was his first edit for roughly a month. He is stalking me unless he had accidentally stumbled on my talk page. -- Cat out 03:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He might also, reasonably, have read this page. His comment is right below your link (which included his name). How is it "stalking" to respond to a post naming him? Particularly since, as you say, "that was his first edit for roughly a month"? – SAJordan talkcontribs 11:50, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).


 * Still advocating moby dick huh? Have a read of WP:TROLL essay. You have been blocked for this behavior on commons indefinitely for it.
 * -- Cat out 17:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Pointing out the above omitted possibility is "advocacy"? And such "advocacy" is a blockable offense? According to this, the block is "For making threats against Cool Cat and others," but nobody's specified, let alone cited, "what threats?", only announced that this repeated question is being ignored, so the false and defamatory charge has been left up going on three weeks now, with no right of rebuttal. How strange. Yet two of the people endorsing this action are running for Stewards; what a lovely prospect for dispute resolutions all over the Wikis. And to think this current furore started with you repeatedly blanking Moby's user page, then trying to get him blocked for asking you to stop. – SAJordan talkcontribs 18:56, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).


 * What are the odds of a person who is completely inactive to be checking the RfAr page. Theoraticaly it is possible of course. He could be watching my talk page as well. These are all plasuable ways to 'stalk' a person. Regardless, its something he is prohibited from doing. He is merely tricking the system as he had been doing for months (nearly two years if you count Davenbelle).
 * -- Cat out 17:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "What are the odds of a person who is completely inactive to be checking the RfAr page" ? It seems like a reasonable precaution for someone who's seen new accusations made against him in an attempt to block him (for complaining when his user page was repeatedly blanked, as noted and linked above). – SAJordan talkcontribs 22:41, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).


 * Well if you guys are so in love with moby dicks contribution, I am out of here. -- Cat out 09:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think users are in love w/ MD. They've just given their views after checking the edits. MD's edit on your talk page is a comment to your medical emergency (rfar #2). Just forget about the issue unless he deliberately harrass you. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest  [[Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg|10px]] <font style="background: orange">Wiki me up ®  15:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He has a record of deliberately harassing me. That is his entire contribution with the exception of very few minor edits. That very link explains the arbitration hearing. He is practically taunting me... I can legally link to any arbitration hearing of my choice at my convinance. Check both his commons and en.wiki contribution and you will see a preoccupation with me.
 * Let me ask this in a different way, if you were under the remedies moby dick is under, would you be doing what moby is doing?
 * -- Cat out 17:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He surely has a record and the ArbCom enforcement of ban on harassment was a result of that same record. However, his edit on your talk page is not a de facto harrassement. He's just commented on something related to his case. You were discussing the Starfleet Security issue and made and you made an analogy between what was happening in the article and MD's case. Note that MD hasn't been involved neither in editing the article nor in the AfD. So the question is why did you have to refer to his case while discussing another issue. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest  [[Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg|10px]] <font style="background: orange">Wiki me up ®  18:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The person I was talking to (hustnoc) was feeling harassed so I asked him to review my past arbcom case about harassment so he can compare his and that case. Obviously he isn't 'stalked' if you compare it to my case... Discussion was not even about moby dick and his nick is only visible if someone looks at the source. -- Cat out 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So his simply looking at your talk page wouldn't give away that you were discussing his case. So much for the idea that he was stalking you. But either searching on the string "arbitration/Moby_Dick" (here restricted to user-talk-space to shorten the list) or looking at the RfAr link page would show him that page. You've just cleared him. Thanks. – SAJordan talkcontribs 22:28, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Unilateral action by Cool Cat's loyal supporter Bastique

 * Now, without saying a word here, Bastique has blocked Moby Dick citing as "harrassment of Cool Cat":
 * the above cited remark (but note the above consensus, Moby was responding to his own name being brought up); and
 * Moby's participation in RFC:Elaragirl – endorsing the summary of Elaragirl – Moby's "Well said, Elaragirl" remark, among 12 other endorsements... (Bastique does not cite Moby's no-comment endorsement of Doug Bell's summary, or Moby's "ya, rfc wo merit" endorsement of Swatjester's summary); and
 * Moby's supportive post to the user talk page of Elaragirl, who was being accused by Cool Cat.


 * Note that where Bastique did log this block, he did not even bother to sign it, Khoikhoi had to add the ID tag an hour later.


 * This is the same Bastique who nominated Cool Cat for Commons admin, and has since then defended him from repeated complaints of admin abuse – CC restoring his own postings deleted for policy violations, or CC repeatedly blanking and even protecting his target's user page – as merely "errors of judgment" ... while cautioning or even threatening to block those who bring up these complaints [same cites], so complaining of admin abuse is clearly a much more severe offense than the admin abuse itself.


 * This is the same Bastique – the same paragon of fairness, of impartiality, of avoiding any conflict of interest, of recusing himself as admin from disputes in which he has personal loyalties – who is now a leading candidate for Steward.


 * Think what we all have to look forward to, in Wiki-wide standards of dispute resolution. – SAJordan talkcontribs 07:31, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).


 * You know... Trolling me is one thing, people hate me anyways... But trolling Bastique... -- Cat out 07:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am shocked at how Commons admins behave. Bastique, what the hell? People with valid concerns about Cool Cat are being blocked out of Commons, and can't do anything about it now. This.. is wrong. -- Ned Scott 08:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Two trolls! Oh, that is twice the fun! -- Cat out 08:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ned, you trolled Cool Cat on Commons, and you weren't blocked. Bastiq ▼ e demandez 23:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, whatever beefs yall have with the Commons, take it there or privately, not hash it out in here where most admins have little to no control at what happens at the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 10:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you've missed the detail that the same cluster of Commons admins who've shown such mutual support and solidarity there are now doing so here on Wikipedia, such as one summarily blocking another's critic (without a hearing or opportunity for defense), rather than properly recusing himself from admin actions in disputes where his personal loyalties are involved. That's unbefitting conduct. It's admin abuse.


 * Besides, how can anyone "take it to Commons" if they're blocked there (on false accusations, without a hearing or opportunity for defense) and their protests in talkspace are simply ignored? As you know. – SAJordan talkcontribs 11:09, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).


 * How many images have you uploaded to commons? What has your entire contribution been? Well? -- Cat out 12:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Note also that Bastique has altered Moby's endorsement to delete evidentiary links Moby was offering to Elaragirl's summary list – in effect, Bastique destroyed evidence that the RfC participants might otherwise have seen. So another effect of his blocking Moby was to keep Moby from restoring the links or drawing attention to the deletion. – SAJordan talkcontribs 11:09, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).


 * FYI, Moby Dick had been blocked per an arbcom ruling, which Bastique reported at the right place. User:Bryan Tong Minh 18:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see where the ArbCom forbade Moby to respond where someone else brings up his name, or to endorse summaries on RfC's, or to write to other people Cool Cat has attacked. These cannot reasonably be termed "harassment of Cool Cat" – but Bastique has done so anyway; just as Cool Cat claimed "harassment" on Wikipedia over the complaint on Commons that CC had repeatedly blanked and even protected Moby's user page, where clearly the harassment was in the other direction.


 * No neutral admin chose to declare the above-cited posts "harassment" in open discussion, or to block Moby. Bastique declared them such elsewhere, in a post he wouldn't even sign his own name to.  And Bastique is not a neutral admin. His alliance on Commons with Cool Cat shows that.


 * It is my impression that admins should recuse themselves from admin-powered intervention in disputes where they have personal loyalty to one disputant, not use those admin powers against the other disputant. That raises questions of fairness and impartiality, versus conflicts of interest. I hope you agree with that much.


 * If a block was appropriate, it should not have been enacted by one of Cool Cat's cronies. And it would have been nice to see some consensus-seeking that harassment was indeed occurring, especially since (as noted above) consensus on the first item was that it wasn't harassing Cool Cat... while the second and third items were being supportive of Elanagirl on the RfC and her talk page – and if that constitutes harassing Cool Cat (because CC opposes her), then how many other people are equally guilty of it? – SAJordan talkcontribs 09:48, 10 Dec 2006 (UTC).


 * I find your attitude most interesting. I do not believe Bastique is loyal to me. No one is my Pokémon here. -- Cat out 09:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know the history here, but SAJordan has some points here that concern me. I really find it a stretch to classify Moby's actions as harassment.  I'm also concerned that Bastique is not completely impartial regarding Cool Cat and it would be better to have the claim of harassment evaluated by another admin.  I am tempted to reduce the block period as blocking for a week for those edits following five months of apprarently problem-free behavior is an overreaction.  In fact, I don't see any behavior here warranting a block at all.  However, as I'm unfamiliar with all the details of this case I have not modified the block, but I do find Bastique's block concerning.  If any other admins are familiar with the arbitration case involving Cool Cat and Mody Dick I would appreciate additional perspective on Bastique's block. —Doug Bell talk 10:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want perspective... Think of a person contesting all your actions on every vote you participate and every article you edit. Practically everything you do this person follows you around. Thats what Moby dick did to me (as per arbcom hearing). Thats why arbcom (redundently since its prohibited behaviour anyways) prohibited him from stalking (harrasing) me. He was told explicity to avoid running into me on votes at a later clarification. Now after a long break he returned to his routine. This non-contributor should have been indef blocked long ago for disruption.
 * Bastique made a sensible decision and blocked him. Bastique is not my pet pokémon and it is extremely disrespectful for people to argue that he is. I do not understand why people are taking SAJordan's comments seriously.
 * -- Cat out 11:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, thank you. I would still like some perspective from an impartial party. —Doug Bell talk 11:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think I qualify as impartial, but I am able to answer Cool Cat's question as to why people are listening to SA Jordan. He has not nominated WP:CIVIL for deletion. You have, in clear violation of just about every rule in the book and some that aren't. Your block log does not exactly endear trust, either. Moreschi 12:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He is still a toll and have been blocked indefinitely from commons for it. I know that makes him an archangel in comparation since we value trolls above anything else on wikipedia. -- Cat out 12:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh for heaven's sake, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; also WP:POT. You are in no position to call anyone a troll. Moreschi 12:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure I am. I have already done so. Moby Dick is indeed a troll. I welcome anyone to contest this. SAJordan is also a troll. I also welcome anyone to contest it.
 * I do not believe you are in any reason to be here. Why is the deletion cabal complaining about me nominating something for deletion?
 * -- Cat out 12:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Can both of you please mind WP:CIVIL (especially as it has not yet been deleted), and avoid the ad hominem remarks. My concerns raised by SAJordan's comments have to do with the content of his comments, not with who is making them.  Please try to keep this discussion focused on the issues. —Doug Bell talk 12:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that, Doug. But if you ever do feel curious about what Cool Cat considers "trolling", please feel free to check out my Commons contrib history, all of 12 edits over 1¼ days, two of those edits being my user and talk pages, the rest being here. Here (moved from RfA main page) is the link I followed to get there, posted by Cool Cat on Wikipedia to charge harassment when he was accused of admin abuse on Commons; and you'll see my comments there too. Here is the announcement of my indef-blocking "For making threats against Cool Cat and others" &mdash; what, you didn't see any threats in what I wrote? Neither did I. Here is where I kept asking "What threats?" and could never get a straight answer. Happy reading, if you ever get around to it... and I'd enjoy learning your opinion. – SAJordan talkcontribs 20:56, 10 Dec 2006 (UTC).


 * Frankly, SAJordan's actions should be considered trolling. He is persistently entering the same four or five links, over, and over and over again, just in case you missed it the first six or seven times.  Please read User talk:SAJordan for my opinion about that.  Bastiq ▼ e demandez 23:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I left a remark on SAJordan's talk page, to which he had not responded. I only just became aware of this thread, brimming full with accusations and innuendo by SAJordan today.
 * He likes to link only to the diffs that matter. Try moving forward or backward in history on each of those diffs.  You'll find quite a broader picture of events.
 * I stand by my block of Moby Dick. Bastiq ▼ e demandez 23:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "I left a remark on SAJordan's talk page, to which he had not responded." Actually, Bastique's remark threatens me with blocking if I do respond there. Recall that he blocked Moby for "trolling" and "harassment" for responding on a talk page where someone had mentioned his name. If I respond on a talk page to Bastique now, that would be committing the identical offense, "trolling" him, which he has ordered me not to do. But who knows what else may also qualify, so I might not be able to post after this.


 * "I only just became aware of this thread  [...]  today." Yet I posted this to Bastique's talk page over 1½ days ago, including (note the link): "and, not to blindside you, also discussed more publicly but in similar detail here, in case you want to address the issue as publicly." Bastique responded (with a refusal) on my talk page just a few hours later the same day, but didn't see that post on his talk page until today?


 * "He likes to link only to the diffs that matter." That's a nice compliment. I don't quite see how it applies to my preceding remark [20:56, 10 Dec 2006 (UTC)], since the links there are not to diffs, only my full Commons contrib history (12 edits) and several page sections. But feel free to check the full page histories too, diff by diff if you like... though if any specific diffs "mattered" or were needed for a "broader picture", I'm sure Bastique would have cited them already. – SAJordan talkcontribs 01:06, 11 Dec 2006 (UTC).

User:Moby Dick's first contribution in weeks was to post a snide comment on the talk page of a user which he had been prohibited from stalking or harassing. This was not some ordinary intersection of contributions that might have happened to accidentally bring him to User:Cool Cat's talk page, after which User:Moby Dick might have posted some spiteful comment, which nevertheless would itself have been problematic; instead, User:Moby Dick's first stop on Wikipedia after coming back was to visit User:Cool Cat's talk page and comment on a matter totally unrelated to producing an encyclopedia. I do not know what is happening on Commons, but on the English Wikipedia User:Moby Dick was not acting in accordance with Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick and may have been going so far as to flout it. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the other two User:Moby Dick comments, and, this is in direct violation of the Arbcom ruling, and is in contempt of it. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Moby Dick's first contribution in weeks was to post a snide comment"... namely, "makes for interesting reading!", in response to the posting of a link in which his name appears. Someone assuming good faith would take that as endorsing the link. You take it as snide.


 * ..."on the talk page of a user which he had been prohibited from stalking or harassing." The user was the one who'd posted the link there. Look up in the top part of this section, where the issue was openly discussed and the consensus was that it was legitimate, not harassment, to respond where his name was mentioned. Even Bastique, who blocked him for it, tells Cool Cat: ..."it would be best not to attract people trolling you by not mentioning old matters in your edits. My case for blocking him, although justifiable, remains arguable".... (emphasis added)


 * "This was not some ordinary intersection of contributions that might have happened to accidentally bring him to User:Cool Cat's talk page".... As discussed above, Moby Dick could have found that link by checking what linked to his arbitration case, a reasonable precaution for someone who keeps getting accused by Cool Cat of horrible offenses like complaining when Cool Cat repeatedly vandalized his user page.


 * ..."and comment on a matter totally unrelated to producing an encyclopedia." That "matter" was posted by Cool Cat and included Moby Dick's name. If commenting "on a matter totally unrelated to producing an encyclopedia" is an offense, is it not obvious that Cool Cat initiated that matter? And that his bringing up Moby Dick's name attracted (using Bastique's word) or invited response from the person named? If I said things about you on my talk page, totally unrelated to producing an encyclopedia, how would it be wrong on your part to respond?


 * "Actually, looking at the other two User:Moby Dick comments, and, this is in direct violation of the Arbcom ruling, and is in contempt of it." So it's wrong to post links to RfAs and RfARs, public documents on the record, relevant to the discussion then ongoing? Then why wasn't it wrong of Cool Cat to post that link to Moby Dick's RfAr?  Or if it was okay for Cool Cat to do that about Moby Dick, why was the converse not okay? Is there a double standard at work here? Why is it that Cool Cat faces no penalty for all his harassment of Moby Dick? – SAJordan talkcontribs 01:06, 11 Dec 2006 (UTC).


 * The block has been done, and, for the record, if Bastique had not gotten to it before I did, I would have blocked User:Moby Dick myself. At the moment your extreme interest in punishing Cool Cat, SAJordan, constitutes trolling as well, so at this time it would be best to just go back to editing the encyclopedia as these replies to this ANI post are honestly getting nowhere. If you would like to address Cool Cat's behavior, file a request for comment instead. Thank you. Cowman109 Talk 01:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Extreme interest in punishing"? But I don't think it's wrong to link to public documents on the record, relevant to the discussion then ongoing. Neither Bastique nor I think it was a punishable offense for Cool Cat to do that; but Bastique blocked Moby Dick for it. Bastique waved away Cool Cat's seven edits in four days (including blanking and protection) of Moby Dick's user page as an "error of judgment", but declared that Moby's making even a single non-vandalizing edit on Cool Cat's talk page (in response to mention of his own name) is a "blockable offense". Bastique has not penalized Cool Cat for carrying complaints back and forth between Commons and Wikipedia, but if Moby or I refer to Cool Cat's history, even on the same project, that's "trolling" and blockable. So the question isn't so much about Bastique's (let alone my) "extreme interest in punishing" behavior, it's about why there's such a discrepancy in how the same behavior is treated, depending on who exhibits it. – SAJordan talkcontribs 02:23, 11 Dec 2006 (UTC).


 * You are now acting like a victim.  You have persistently distorted the facts to create a scenario in which you have become a victim.  You are obsessed with seeing Cool Cat punished.   You have made a great effort to elicit some sort of reaction from him and now myself.  You are indeed trolling, and you are exhausting the community's patience with you.  This is literally trolling.  You have been told now by myself and now other admins to stop engaging in this trolling behavior.  You had best heed the warnings.  Bastiq ▼ e demandez 02:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you think these people were "trolling", by the same definition? Or these? – SAJordan talkcontribs 03:14, 11 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I have no reason to be on SAJordan's side, and I'm not even sure who exactly he is, but I'm finding this whole thing rather disturbing. I agree that this isn't the place to complain, but at the same time it does involve administrators here on en.wiki since Bastique is doing things that I would think are.. bad decisions. I had left comments about Cool Cat on commons that was completely unrelated to SAJordan, and Bastique deleted the talk page containing my comment. I've got nothing to do with SAJordan, and I don't really care about this Moby guy, but am I the only one who thinks somethings not right here? Where does one go, at this point? How does one handle a cross-project issue such as this? Like I said, I'll be glad to take this conversation somewhere else, but I'm really not sure where that would be. Any thoughts or advice? -- Ned Scott 06:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (Ned, are you referring to this? An entire RfA talk page deleted by Bastique for "obvious trolling "? What a flexible definition of "trolling". [Your comment was: "This is the kind of thing that makes you loose faith in how Wikimedia projects are run. I like how none of the previous concerns about Cool Cat were brought up, simply because most people didn't even notice this 3rd nomination in the first place... Seriously, what gives? Very valid concerns were brought up, and we turn our backs and this new nomination takes place. There is something very wrong with this process. -- Ned Scott 23:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)"] – SAJordan talkcontribs 16:27, 11 Dec 2006 (UTC). )


 * Ned, I'm in sort of the same boat as you in that I don't know SAJordan, Cool Cat, Mody Dick, or Bastique, but I sure have the uneasy feeling that something doesn't add up here—that's why I initially responded in this thread. I can't say that the subsequent conversion has done anything to alleviate my concerns. —Doug Bell talk 12:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I support the comments of Doug and Ned. I am completely outside the issue, and only noticed here because I am watching this page for an unrelated matter. I am also troubled by Bastique's conflict of interest in this matter, and what I perceive as threats to SAJordan. I would also add that as a member of the community, Bastique doesn't speak for me when he says Jordan is "trying the patience of the community". I would like to see this issue resolved to the satisfaction of all parties involved, which would include SAJordan and MobyDick. Jeffpw 12:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read all of the above discussion, but if lightening the mood is needed, wouldn't it be appropriate to resurrect User:Captain Ahab or User:Ahab and get him to harpoon, um, file an arbitration case against, User:Moby Dick? :-) Or should that be the other way around...? Carcharoth 13:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (hoping there is no User:Huan or User:Huan the Hound of Valinor)

Given that SAJordan's post at the top of this section amounts to a scurrilous smear-job (right up the old canard about unilateral action--what, exactly, is a bilateral administrative action?), I'm surprised the discussion has wound on so long. I would've blocked under the circumstances as well, for much the same reasons as Bastique did. Moby Dick doesn't get the same considerations as other users because he's under Arbcom sanction for exactly this kind of behaviour. The discussion was not related to Moby Dick, as some claim; rather, Coolcat was citing the previous arbitration case as an example of people following him around. The specific context was Star Trek deletions. In no way does this involve Moby Dick. Dropping in like that to make a frivolous remark is harassment and proof that he's watching Coolcat's talk page. The Arbitration Committee, with reason, forbade this kind of behaviour. Moby Dick is right though, that case does make interesting reading, if one makes the time. Mackensen (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Suspected identity theft
Has User:Deltabeignet  been hijacked by a vandal? See User talk:Deltabeignet and neighboring sections for incidents. &mdash; Sebastian 20:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, does anyone read this? The user now replied, which could be a good sign. However, the reply looks not like what you would expect from of an experienced editor of over 8000 edits. &mdash; Sebastian 17:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not getting better. As I feared, he seems to be blocking users that question him, at least that's what someone said on my talk page. I have no interest in getting drawn into this much more, so I will simply copy all evidence I'm aware of here and will direct all conversation here. &mdash; Sebastian 07:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I must protest. I blocked a self-avowed sockpuppet of a hard-banned user. Purely administrative stuff, unrelated to this matter. Deltabeignet 22:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence from User talk:Deltabeignet
I am copying this evidence in its entirety since Deltabeignet makes use of his freedom to delete what he doesn't like on his user page. &mdash; Sebastian 07:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Guitar pick revert
Hello, I've seen you've reverted my "rv unmotivated deletion" commit here in Guitar pick article. Can you explain if there's any rationale behind it? I don't see that phrase as meaningless, it emphasises that guitar pick style is a matter of personal preference. --GreyCat 08:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Two more unexplained reverts to vandalism
and. As I explained in my summaries, I had reverted deletions by an editor who already has been warned several times. But you provide no summary for your reverts. Did someone hijack your account? &mdash; Sebastian 20:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * One edit you reverted was a removal of blatant original research; the other was an explained removal of unsourced and irrelevant material. Remember, the removal of text by an anonymous user does not automatically equal vandalism. Deltabeignet 23:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I'm still not sure if I'm really talking with your old self. You used to be conscientious about this, so it is strange that you wouldn't write summaries anymore, not even for deletions of whole sections. Also, your explanation about the edits shows no knowledge of the applicable Wikipedia policies, which doesn't quite fit to an experienced editor of over 8000 edits. &mdash; Sebastian 17:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)   (Please reply on this page.)


 * All right, I'll come clean. I have been editing anonymously as User:69.245.41.105, as part of an informal experiment to investigate how anonymous editors are treated when making good-faith removals of unsourced material. (I still defend the edits themselves; as Jimbo has stressed, speculative material must be aggressively removed.) I have also been using my admin powers to roll back any reversions of my anonymous edits, to see if anyone would challenge an admin making the same edits.
 * My deepest apologies to you if you if anything I've done has offended or threatened you in any way. I don't intend to make any more anonymous edits, and am willing to accept any consequences for what I have done. Deltabeignet 22:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a weird story! Why did you not come clean when you got blocked in October? I still don't see any evidence that you are the same as the original Deltabeignet. It is a well known fact among experienced editors that Jimbo followed up on his remark and that we have an unmistakable policy about this which you violated. Moreover, you blatantly violated several other core policies, not to improve Wikipedia, but only to prove your point. &mdash; Sebastian 23:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I realized from the start that I was going right against WP:POINT, among other things. If you are seriously concerned that I'm an impostor, I give you my word that I am the same person who was approved for adminship last year. I admit that I've grown a little disillusioned with the project since then, which is as good an explanation as I can give for what I've done. Again, I'll accept any consequences.
 * (By the way, I don't remember either my username or my IP being blocked in October; could you clarify that?) Deltabeignet 02:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand where SebastianHelm's accusation that you're not you is coming from (he posted it at WP:AN/I), but I did want to say that I consider the breaching experiment rather uncool. I'm glad you don't intend to keep at it.  If there's one thing to be learned from the Konstable affair, as far as I'm concerned, it's that if there's a hole, we should try to fix it together, not poke at it and see how big it needs to be before someone notices. (Also, I suspect that if an anon removed blatant OR with a clear edit summary, it would not be reverted.)  Chick Bowen 05:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Chick, you're misunderstanding me. I did not bring this up as an accusation. To the contrary, it was because I believe in the old, the good Deltabeignet that I thought of that possibility. It still has not been disproven, but I am sorry that it is becoming less and less likely - I would have wished it was all just a bad dream.
 * Since Deltabeignet makes use of his right to delete what he doesn't like on this page, I will copy this discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suspected identity theft (which, BTW may be a misnomer, but I don't want to change it since it would break the links pointing there). Please continue the discussion there. &mdash; Sebastian 07:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Gothic Metal
Please do not blank articles. Doing so is considered Vandalism. Continued abuse of this nature can lead to temporaty or even permanent bans in accordance with the blocking policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.161.138 (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC).


 * This apparently refers to this edit, which was immediately before Deltabeignet's reply above (summarized as "the gig is up"). &mdash; Sebastian 00:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

 This whole section, including SebastianHelm's remark, was removed on 20:49, 10 December 2006] 

Blocks of User:Leyasu
When you block IPs used by Leyasu, could you please make a note of it on the page for the arbitration cases where he has been involved? (Requests for arbitration/Leyasu and Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker) It gives us a good, central place to keep a log of the IPs he has been using; the arb cases also specified listing the blocks there. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Deltabeignet 04:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence from User talk:SebastianHelm
IN User talk:SebastianHelm, an anonymous user, who say he's and who is, well quite "a character",  complains about being banned by Deltabeignet after Leyasu reverted Deltabeignet's blanking of the article Gothic Metal. He posted on my talk page under the addresses, , and. &mdash; Sebastian 07:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Leyasu may be blocked on sight as he is banned after exhausting the community's patience. A wekk long block for his IP address is excessive, though, since he seems to be able to change his IP rather easily when he wants to. Thatcher131 08:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking this! &mdash; Sebastian 08:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User Vml675
Could another admin please review and intervene in a situation regarding Vml675 (now mainly editing as ) and his or her single issue socks. Despite numerous warnings, the editor consistently removes sourced content, to suit a pro-POV and introduce copyright material  to Robina Qureshi using a number of accounts. There is also the recent development of accusatory edit summaries. As the only other major editor to the article that all the socks edit almost exclusively, I do not wish to use admin tools personally. Thanks. Rockpock e  t  01:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say file a checkuser, then all socks and the master account can be blocked cleanly, even by you. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User labelling his own sockpuppets
Very strange, but seems to be identifying his own sockpuppets - or maybe it's all a hoax. --<font color="#0000FF">Armadillo <font color="#000000">From <font color="#DD2222">Hell <font color="#AAAAAA">GateBridge 07:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at the specifics yet, but.... Points for honesty? ;)


 * If he/she/they openly link the various IDs to each other, and avoid using them on the same topics or voting on the same issues, then as I understand it these become no longer "sockpuppets" but merely "alternate IDs". – SAJordan talkcontribs 10:23, 10 Dec 2006 (UTC).


 * Yep, he says he's "fessing up to [his] sockpuppets":
 * 06:34, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Fatalism, lol (←Created page with `{ {sockpuppet|Insineratehymn}}`)  (top)
 * 06:34, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Imheadingtothepark (←Created page with `{ {sockpuppet|Insineratehymn}}`) (top)
 * 06:33, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User:ScoutMasterLumpas (←Created page with `{ {sockpuppet|Insineratehymn}}`) (top)
 * 06:33, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User:CampKidney (←Created page with `{ {sockpuppet|Insineratehymn}}`) (top)
 * 06:31, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Gokonozo (Fessing up to my sockpuppets) (top)
 * 06:28, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Insineratehymn (top)
 * I don't think the "suspected sockpuppet" template quite describes what should be a "confessed [or admitted] sockpuppet". If there's an approved template for openly declaring an alternate ID, maybe that should be suggested to him – along with guidelines for use or non-use. But it does look like he's trying to come clean, so that should be taken into account. – SAJordan talkcontribs 10:45, 10 Dec 2006 (UTC).


 * Although this may verge on being an assumption of bad faith, maybe it'd be good to get confirmation that they are actually socks of him/her, and not just some reandom users who he is tagging to be annoying. The perfect way is to get him/her to log in to each of them and post a dummy edit confirming what he/she's doing. Thoughts? Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 10:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll suggest it to him. And I think the approved method is to have redirects on all the secondary IDs' user/talk pages to his primary's, with a list of those IDs on his primary's pages. Yes, surely each ID should login to edit its own pages, as confirmation. Thanks! – SAJordan talkcontribs 11:04, 10 Dec 2006 (UTC).
 * As long as he avoids using them on the same topics or voting on the same issues, there is nothing wrong with this. There are several good reasons someone might want to do this. Trollderella 20:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Joel on the SOL edit warring over a rating.
I recently added the LGBT WikiProject tag to Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom and rated it a B-class. Shortly afterwards, I got a short but blunt note from an IP that my rating was unacceptable and had been taken down. Since then, User:Joel on the SOL has repeatedly insulted me, questioned my ability as an editor, made numerous personal attacks and has repeatedly removed the grading(very close to breaking 3RR). Admittedly, I lost my temper at first, but despite my attempts to bring him back to what is actually wrong with the rating, he insists of going off about how utterly unqualified I am to rate articles and that I am a deeply unpleasant user. Regardless of whether that is true or not, I fail to see how this has any bearing on a rating that has been supported by everyone but Joel. Some blocking/warning/input would be nice, because he's taking up both mine and Jeff's time on this deeply stupid dispute, that he won't even address. Argument taking place on my userpage, Jeffpw's talkpage, Joel's talkpage, and of course, Talk:Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom itself. I think it's simply a case of one user steadily winding himself up about his baby getting what he sees as a low rating, but if an admin could do something about this, I'd be grateful. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I put a note on that user's talk page, asking him to moderate his tone, and warning him again about 3RR. I would encourage you to file a 3RR report if he does it again, and to restore the B rating given the absence of any content-related discussion (as I read that talk page, Joel isn't so much disputing the rating itself as he is refusing to rate the article at all - is that accurate?). | Mr. Darcy talk
 * Yes, that appears to be what's happening. Thanks for your warning. I'd restore it once more, but I think I'm close to 3RR myself, I'll ask someone else to do it just in case. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's accurate. Joel is angry that the article was not rated higher, and is unwilling to discuss his reasons for thinking it should be higher. He ignores all explanations of the GA process, and that "B"is as high as an assessed rating can get (well "A" is possible, in theory, but that is a higher rating than GA and this is not even at GA yet). He states that if it is not rated higher, it may not be rated at all. I will change the rating myself now.Jeffpw 22:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Talk on this article, there were by Jeffpw's own count three reverts by Joel on the SOL - that does not place anyone over the 3RR limit and now that makes two of you who owe him an apology! 81.159.212.153 23:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be assuming that you and Joel are not one and the same, of course. Because you also reverted. In any event, I am sure if an admin is interested, he or she can go into the history and see exactly just how many reverts were made, and by whom. Jeffpw 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This anonymous user is almost certainly a sock of User:Joel on the SOL. See Special:Contributions/81.159.212.153; the user has contributed to seven separate articles (excluding AN/I), and Joel on the SOL has edited five of those, with several edits from each user to the talk page under dispute. Regardless, a 3RR warning was issued; if Joel on the SOL violates it again, alone or by using his sock, he'll be subject to a block. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Joel, there is this thing called Checkuser, which will allow us to determine (if necessary) what IPs you edit from. Personally, I would have already blocked you for a 3RR violation, as it is obvious.  And, should you persist in this battle you may be blocked for less than 4 reverts, because 3RR merely extablishes a clear line, it does not entitle you to edit war up to 3 reverts per day.  If you persist in edit warring and continue to deny the obvious, I'll be happy to apply for a checkuser request and drop a much longer block on you after the result comes back.  Try a peer review to see how to improve the article, and remember that no one owns any article here. Thatcher131 08:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Has the anonymous editor been userchecked? I ask because Mr. Darcy placed a sockpuppet template on his userpage, and the anon IP removed it, calling the template drivel in his edit summary. This while continuing to sow the seeds of dissension on the Talk:Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom page. Jeffpw 09:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I thought we had moved along already. The anon user has admitted to being a meatpuppet of Joel on the SOL - or, if he's lying, it's just Joel himself. Either way, if those two users are working in concert to avoid violating 3RR or to otherwise influence the editing of that article, they should be blocked. I've also noted on the anon's talk page that he must not remove the template, with a fuller explanation of why it's appropriate. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Harassment edit
Please consider action based on this edit to User:MONGO's talkpage. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 15:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * *plonk* Thatcher131 18:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Block of RussianPatriot and NapoleonBon
I have indef-blocked because he appears to be a sockpuppet created solely to attack another editor.

An account whose first (and only) edits were to create a user page, then an RfC (Requests for comment/ghirlandajo), and then invite several editors to the RfC with the invitation "RFC for Vandal and Troll" seems...suspicious to me.

I have also indef-blocked because it was a newly-created account whose only edits were to create a minimal user page and endorse RussianPatriot's RfC. So far, RussianPatriot and NapoleonBon are the only editors to the RfC.

I post this message to seek review of my actions. I probably should also delete the RfC, but I've left it in place until I get a second opinion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it. I have deleted the troll RfC, which was a copy of the old Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo. Kusma (討論) 16:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Syrthiss 16:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good for you! RussianPatriot is clearly a troll. --<font face="Verdana"><font color="SteelBlue">Elar a <font color="SteelBlue">girl  Talk 16:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, right&mdash;I suppose I should have recognized Bonaparte.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why Bonaparte's antics should be discussed here at such length, but since they are, here's my take on the situation. After Requests for comment/Piotrus has been opened, Bonaparte seems to have been informed about it and was trolling there (and elsewhere) like crazy: see his threats here, or here, or here... With each new sock, he becomes more abusive and aggressive. Since it is clear from this edit that he still respects User:Ronline (who occasionally agitates for his unblocking), I asked Ronline to reason with Bonaparte in the Romanian wikipedia, where the former is an admin. No response from Ronline and tons of trolling from Bonaparte... -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  17:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This mess gets worse and worse. --<font face="Verdana"><font color="SteelBlue">Elar a <font color="SteelBlue">girl  Talk 22:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

spastic
Is there any chance that we could get spastic semi-protected? 16 of the past 50 edits are reverts of vandalism. Which means that about 24 of the past 50 edits are vandalism!Balloonman 18:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just found appropriate page to make request...Balloonman 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User willfully violating WP:FUC #9
User:Hornetman16 is willfully violating Fair use criteria item #9. Today, I removed some fair use images from his userpage as I have done on thousands of other pages. As per this RfC, I did not leave him a talk page message but there was a detailed edit summary. He reverted my removals and in so doing added another fair use image. I removed these images and left him a talk page message. He reverted my second removal, and two minutes later left me a talk page message. I removed the images for a third time, and while I was leaving him another talk page message he reverted the removal again. Though I've been told that I may deal with this as rank and file vandalism, and WP:3RR does not apply since the user is willfully violating policy, I am bringing it here for other administrators to revert this user's violation and place a message on his talk page concurring with my actions and policy. Thank you, --Durin 19:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Tariqabjotu and I crossed wires slightly - he was protecting the page as I warned the user that he would be blocked if he continued, a warning which is now basically moot. But anyway, I think that resolves it one way or the other. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, he explained what I did. I protected the page. --  tariq abjotu  19:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick assist, both of you. I've offered to unprotect if he agrees to stop violating this policy. --Durin 19:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:HandlerJ and User:Takg
These two users who are doing nothing but vandalising each other's (and their own) pages. I gave each of them Userpage warning and warnings as appropriate, but the nonsesnse has continues. I'm basically not sure where to go from here.

They are basically wasting resources (both WP's, and my own time in keeping an eye on them). Is a shortish block warranted here? Chovain 21:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked indef. What a bunch of nonsense ... two (presumably teenaged) friends coming to Wikipedia solely to vandalize each other's userpages. -- Cyde Weys 22:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Images on Talk:Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident
The article for Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident has been protected due to edit warring regarding the permissibility of two images – Image:Beit HanounBlood.jpg and Image:Gaza morgue .jpg – with disputed fair-use rationales. Some have complained that part of the reason the images ought to be removed is that they are meant to play on people's heartstrings rather than be informative. However, in an attempt to contest this theory, has posted fourteen pictures used in other Wikipedia articles to the article's talk page – related to The Holocaust, 9|11, and the Armenian Genocide. At least one editor complained about the images, and I agreed with his sentiment. I believe the display of the images are pushing a WP:POINT violation, as they appear merely there for shock value (and, ironically, pulling on heartstrings). It looks like the approach was something along the lines of compared to those fourteen gruesome images, the two images for this article are nothing, which, in my opinion, is not an appropriate approach to deciding the correctness of a fair-use rationale. So, my question is, should these images be removed from the talk page or am I just over-reacting? --  tariq abjotu  03:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While not an admin, I took a look at the page in question. That entire talk page is absolutely filled with violations of everything from WP:POINT to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:NOT. The images of the Armenian Genocide (I didn't see any there from the Holocaust) and from 9/11 serve no useful purpose on the talk page except for the user in question to attempt to debunk an opinion which they disagree with. On the subject of the pictures, the gaza morgue image is clearly irrelevant as it could just as easily be a picture of people crying in any city in the world on any random occasion. While I could be convinced as to the relevance of the blood image, simply standing on its own in the article would not give it any useful purpose. In contrast, if there were images available of Israeli troops during the event itself, or some other topical image from the event itself, I could see its relevance more surely. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The images under Talk:Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident are from the Holocaust. --  tariq abjotu  04:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I came here due to a message from Tariqabjotu, so thanks for the notice.

I dispute that edit warring is regarding the fair use ratinal of the pictures, that is in my view a obvious distraction that will no succed: any one who is impartial will recoqnize that they fullfill all the cirteria for fair use.If they indeed would have been fair-use breach, one of them would not have been undeleted after i took it to deletion review, complaining that "one" admin had deleted it out of process, and that it indeed was fair use.

WP:POINT is not applicable since it states that one should not disrupt wikipedia to make a point. The other pictures are not there to make a point, they are there as an argument. That is a huge difference. If my article gets deleted, and i afd another article, that would be POINT, ie to do something one in reality does not endorse, to prove its inappropriateness. The additional pictures serve no such purpose, they are not there to demonstrate the inappropriateness of anything. WP:POINT would be to go to Holocaust, 911 and Armenian Genocide, and removing those pictures arguing that they are "pulling on heartstrings" (what a nonsensical made up rule!). So no, POINT is not applicable.

"They apear for shoch value". C'mon, if they were shock site-picture, they would not be on wikipedia to start with. They are on stable articles and nobody is disputing their appropriateness on those articles - it is very weak to argue that they are appropriate on article main space, but not appropriate on a talk page regarding a dispute of the appropriateness of war time pictures.

"serve no useful purpose on the talk page except for the user in question to attempt to debunk an opinion which they disagree with". Is "to debunk an opinion which they disagree with" not enough reason in it self? C'mon, we are talking about a talk page, talk pages are there to present arguments and debunk false arguments.

Regarding the validity of including any individual picture in that article, this is not the place to comment or respond to comments regarding that, the article talk page exists for that. Further, i would like to make clear that i am the one actively engaged in trying to find a solution to this problem. I talk on the talk page, i invited third parties. When that did not work, i created a RFC. Now, this did not work either, and i have filed a request to the Mediation Cabal. understand that i am working in accordance to policies and guidelines and have no interest in breaching either of them, it is me that is following the dispute resolution process, it is not me that is unitarility deleting images out of process, it is not me that is removing peoples comments and arguments in the talk page and it is not me that have been warned and blocked for incivility and revert wars, rather, it is me reporting those kinds of behaviors. Further, i want to make clear that i am not the only one advocating the right to present the images on the talk page as arguments, at least two other users have supported their inclusion. That is the talk page, that is were we present arguments. And those are pictures used on Wikipedia articles, so how could they be good enough for an article, but be "to shocking" on a talk page? Are we going to deny one side the ability to present arguments in good faith? Peace. --Striver 06:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see this to understand what kind of opposition we are facing. It is a challenge on its own to not loose patience when seeing those things. adding to the incivility and that people try to side-step the main issue by invoking fair use disputes and denying one side to present arguments is not helping either. This is a highly infected debate, and it would not surprise me if i will be forced to go all the way in the dispute resolution process. --Striver 06:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I've been tangentially involved in similar disputes, which may make me slightly biased, but if this one is anything like any of the others, I'll have to say back up Striver. This appears to be yet another example of the ridiculous Israel POV-warriors vs. ridiculous the Muslim POV-warriors, not about FU. While I was on a similar page, I felt people were using excuses to get each image suggestion removed, and it doesn't surprise me that the fair-use criteria has come up on this page either. Striver was doing nothing more than saying, "hey, look, these other images are part of WP articles, so why shouldn't this article have one?". Because it was not a FU argument, but a content argument (or at least, Striver saw it that way), this was not a WP:POINT violation, but a reasonable request. That's my two cents, I may be wrong, but it's what it seems to me. All said, I wouldn't mind seeing every Israel-Arab article on this entire encyclopedia full-protected until people learn to work out their differences. -Patstuarttalk 06:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree it's not a Fair Use issue, but I do think that it is a valid content dispute... though by definition that would then not be dealt with here. To make it seem like it's cut-and-dry though, as Striver seems to be doing, is fallacious. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 06:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That being said, Striver, you could have just linked to the images, rather than displaying them, which was kind of untasteful. -Patstuarttalk 06:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As I've said on the talk page already there is a serious fair use problem with putting the images on the talk page (at minimum). Furthermore, I'll note that the dif Striver gave is from an anon using a dynamic IP who all editors (even the more pro-Israel ones) are reverting on sight- the user has been blocked for personal attacks twice before. That dif is not a representative sample of the situation. JoshuaZ 07:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that this was not a query about the fair-use images for the article, but rather the display of the Holocaust, 9|11, and genocide images on the talk page. I won't stop you from discussing the fair-use images, though. --  tariq abjotu  18:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And really, the repeated references to Hitler and the Holocaust during the discussion have contributed significantly to the atmosphere of incivility. Admittedly I've seen it on both sides, but the pictures only aggravate it.--Rosicrucian 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I also think that until the intentionality is proven, such images do not belong in an encyclopedia. While news agencies (including BBC) often chose sensationalism and bias (proof), we should try to keep NPOV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Its the trolling of Striver to put the Holocaust pics on the discussing page. Discussing pages arent supposed to be filled with pics of dying people. I took them out so editors can talk about things without waiting for them to load then looking at them BUT then someone brought them back. Plus the pic of the blood in the street in article is misrepresenting and or digitally altered. the red color its not coming from blood.Opiner 12:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Civility
It might be nice to note that Cool Cat has been in an unending violation of WP:POINT as of late, and what's more, he makes several of his own personal attacks in the nomination. Could someone please take a look at this and consider some kind of ban? He's surely knows this won't pass, and even his own reasoning says, "I'm tired of incivility, so I nominated this", which is exactly the opposite of the correct reasoning (unless it's a POINT violation, of course). I'm not sure he's not looking to try to get banned, so maybe a longer ban would do. -Patstuarttalk 08:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No idea on Cool Cat- I leave this to others who know the situation. Closed the Mfd.  Friday (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I already had brought this up above. Tito xd (?!?) 08:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never seen someone try so hard to get himself blocked for a POINT violation. He formally requested to be indef'ed. If he's trying this hard to get banned, maybe we could use a nice wikibreak to help him get his wits about him and start contributing right. -Patstuarttalk 08:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I should think that if there was any doubt about Cool Cat's behavior before, by now it is clarified....he's been completely out of line. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    On Belay!  09:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was reading WP:POINT for the first time this morning and laughed out loud when I saw so many don'ts fitting him like a glove! I've been on the far periphery of only a small fraction of the ill will and disruption he has perpetrated and, even at a distance, and as a mildly interested nonparticipant observer, I feel the whiplash effects.


 * Anyone sensing that (un) Cool Cat has been striving to make a mockery of a system which won't reliably serve his whims on demand is rather perceptive. I am among those who view with disfavour, as well, the lengths to which Bastique has gone to cater to and enable his impulses and tantrums.
 * Doesn't jsutify personal attacks against him. Struck. &rArr;  <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    On Belay!  06:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What he has been doing is not justifiable. He should have at least a week to a month off, minimum.   Athænara  ✉ 15:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I gave him a week-long block, with what I hope is a helpful block summary. Please review. Grand  master  ka  19:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Endorsed - not that I count as an impartial reviewer. Moreschi 19:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Should be longer (2-4 weeks) in my opinion, based on his block log and repeated nature of the violations: questionable RfC, trolling ANI, absurd MfD. Eluchil404 08:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a single purpose account used to troll (see contributions). Listing here in case the Lady's edits remind more established editors of similar past behavior by other problematic users. Gzkn 10:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, there is something familiar about it. Can't put my finger on it... well, I have some idea who it might be. I'll have a word. Bishonen | talk 10:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
 * So will I. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  10:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And i'll be watching this, especially this one. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest  [[Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg|10px]] <font style="background: orange">Wiki me up ®  13:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect this has all been a joke between Bishonen and a few of her friends, tongues firmly in cheek on all sides. I mean, Bish's old joke topic of Baroque toilet-paper holders and all... Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure whether it is part of WP:BJADON or Category:Wikipedia humor. Waiting for Bishonen's comment. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest  [[Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg|10px]] <font style="background: orange">Wiki me up ®  13:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm trolling now? Actually I was thinking of the eminently serious and useful editor Musical Linguist—Ann—who I suppose might like to let her hair down occasionally like everybody else. Ann seems to have a bit of an identification going with Lady Catherine de Bourgh, a character in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. At least, parts of this edit by Ann are spoken in the character of Lady C. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
 * hmmmm. It was an assumption anyway. Thanks for the note. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest  [[Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg|10px]] <font style="background: orange">Wiki me up ®  14:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This edit is incredible Catherine de Burgh 15:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If, at the next sign of article disruption, I block this account indefinitely for trolling, is someone going to whack me over the head with WP:AGF? Because my bullshit detector is in the red. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't.--Crossmr 15:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As is mine, and with very, very good reason. Mackensen (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While I won't speak for idiots (who do a good job of doing so themselves), I certainly wouldn't. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just logged in and am horrified to note the response to Bishonen's and my edits at Renaissance architecture have been such a problem. I have to say after giving the matter a great deal of thought and consideration I have to say I think Catherine is correct to revert.  I am now  tending to side with the school of thought that considers it unlikely that the King of Spain, chose to adorn the external walls of his palace with toilet paper dispensers for the use of his servants.  In fact they are more likely to be either mere Renaissance decoration or for the securing of goats.  Regarding Palladio's design for the toilet paper holders at Villa Capra this is more complex,  While those in the "Tourist Comfort Zone" are undoubtedly of high quality and aesthetically pleasing, the trade mark stamped on the reverse indicates  Ikea a (Swedish company).  Palladio is not known to have visited Sweden, or to have sold copyright to Ikea, this leads me to believe he is not responsible for their design.  In conclusion I think Catherine was probably correct to revert.  I shall now go and revert  with a suitable summary.  Thank you all for your interest in this matter.  It's all most revealing,  and indeed gratifying that so many are attuned to architecture Giano 16:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...OK I have no idea what's going on, so sorry if this was some sort of harmless in-joke. I certainly never said your edits or Bishonen's were a problem. I listed this here so that other, more established editors might be able to let me know what was going on with this user. I didn't have any ulterior motives... Gzkn 08:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of Kaaba page
The page concerning the Ka'ba in Mecca has had an inappropriate picture added. 195.99.1.168 17:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Usual vandalism as for thousands of articles. Nothing particular. Please refer to WP:AIV or WP:RFPP next time. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest  [[Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg|10px]] <font style="background: orange">Wiki me up ®  17:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect the anon IP user is referring to this image. Whether it's inappropriate or not is a bit of a POV issue. 19:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See depictions of Muhammad. There are varying traditions in this regard. It's definitely not an issue that's for administrators to address. --bainer (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest  [[Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg|10px]] <font style="background: orange">Wiki me up ®  10:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User:The Transhumanist and admin coaching again - internal spamming?
See Special:Contributions/The_Transhumanist. This time it's regarding a userfied form of his old "admin school" (see related MFD). 32 talk messages in the space of 40 minutes, carrying the same thing. Internal spamming? – Chacor 08:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like he's continuing. Can an admin please take a look? – Chacor 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I now count 46 user talk messages in the space of just 63 minutes. Surely this counts as some sort of disruptive WP:SPAM? – Chacor 08:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Have a word on the talk page, and suggest that it be limited to advertising in a few selected places, or to those who have participated in the past or are participating at the moment. Carcharoth 08:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What difference would suggesting that it be limited make at the moment, because he's obviously continuing to press ahead with spamming talk pages with the same message. I'd have a word, but I consider myself semi-involved with the whole Admin school thing, and would rather not be the one doing it. – Chacor 08:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've asked him to comment here -- Samir धर्म 08:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd like to hear his explanation. – Chacor 08:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

We're still experiencing a bottleneck at Admin Coaching, with the wait time measured in months. I thought the VC could be of help to those waiting since it would give them a place to learn advanced Wikipedia skills in the meantime. The message was sent only to those on the admin coaching waiting list, because the current topic of discussion is especially relevant to them: we're currently running a Q&A session on vandalism. You are all invited as well, and I'm sure everyone there would love to read about your vandalism fighting methods. The Transhumanist 09:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Virtual classroom.. uhm.. :-\ <font face="Tahoma">thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "The message was sent only to those on the admin coaching waiting list" Okay, so that settles my worries about internal spamming, but since it's such a long list would it not have been better to just make a public announcement at the Village Pump or on Esperanza's talk page or something similar? Secondly, isn't this almost equivalent to a POV-fork in article space? – Chacor 09:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't really have any reason to believe that these particular users frequent those pages. The only way to ensure contact was to do so directly. As for the POV-fork thing, I don't see how that could apply, since this isn't in article space, and it isn't even an article, it's a discussion page.  We're on our third topic of discussion, and is open to anyone to participate.  So far we've covered user interfaces, stubbing, and now we're on vandalism.  The user interface discussion provided so much useful information on tools that it became the basis of this tools presentation:  Tools/Optimum tool set.  I hope you like it.   The Transhumanist 09:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What I meant to say is that is this not equivalent to what would be a POV-fork if in article space? Basically, what Samir asked below, what's the difference between this and Admin school, it seemed like just an offshoot to bypass the result of the MFD. Thanks for answering. – Chacor 09:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See my answer to Samir below, but I'll add an additional comment here: it wasn't a bypass because from the discussions evolved an entirely new thing, which is based on the suggestions and concerns aired in the MfDs. I'm actually glad now that the admin school idea was killed, because this project is much better.  It's not another help desk like the old program was, this page has greater scope, a more refined platform, and is much better focused on the betterment of Wikipedia. The Transhumanist 10:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it different that the subject of this MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Admin_school. I'm just curious, wasn't fully aware of these admin coaching programs -- Samir धर्म 09:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking.   It was covered in this subsequent MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom.  Basically the scope is much wider, that is, a discussion is run every week or two on a major topic, with a guest writer contributing the material and fielding questions, and other general classroom assignments.  Here's the link to the page:  Virtual classroom  Please, come have a look. The Transhumanist 09:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, looks like you put a lot of work into this! -- Samir धर्म 09:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've been developing it according to the consensus arrived at in the above mentioned MfDs, and people have been contacting me out of the blue asking if they can contribute course material.  The next topic of discussion is going to be written by Elargirl, on deletion and deletionism.  See her request here: User talk:The Transhumanist.  The Transhumanist 09:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Xenophobia
Are posts like these from User:Nadirali acceptable?
 * 1) Ethnic slurs, nationalist sentiment, coterie formation.
 * 2) Xenophobia
 * 3) Threatening admin Ragib
 * 4) Spamming hate sites
 * 5) Anti-Hindu remarks
 * 6) Baiting
 * 7) Xenophobia and falsehood (History of India has multiple flags)
 * 8) -  declares he will edit war together with the help of User:Siddiqui (extremist views per RfC here) Hkelkar 02:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He continues trolling on Talk:History of Pakistan. See Hkelkar 02:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've given him a stern warning. --  tariq abjotu  02:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a note; he seems to have admitted to being a puppetmaster, I would think that would warrant an immediate block, no? -- '''Chabuk

[ T • C ]''' 02:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While we're on the topic, is the list of "threats to world peace and stability" this user has on his userpage really necessary? It seems to me that it will do nothing except cause disputes. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 02:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... nah. He threatens to become one, but doesn't say that he has. --Kizor 06:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems you have ganged up against me a third time.Im not stupid enough to ignor that.This whole affair would not have continued had you stopped threatening user:Sadiqui along with calling me a "madrassa student" and vandalizing my comments on the Pakistan talk page.Regarding the "sock puppet",I only have one account.I lost my temper at ragib because I was under the impression that he was taking sides against me.As for the flags,you probably never heard of free speech.User:Szhaider has similar content on his user page.I also find it curious that you HelklerHekler and your friends happen to post approximately the same time when attacking me or other Pakistani wikipedians with your anti-Pakistan sentiments.Is falsly reporinting me to an administrator while hiding your own violations your way of getting back at me?Nadirali 04:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali Let's talk about Xenophobia then: "where did you read this? In a Pakistani madarassa? C'mon, have you ever heard of the Indo-Aryan migration theory. After the arrival of Aryans in the Indian subcontinent, the IVC was virtually destroyed. The civilization created by the Aryans afterwards is known as the Vedic civilization. Dude.. go read some history books before blabbering here and stop showing off your madarassa education. --Incman|वार्ता 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)'''" Pakistan puffs it's chest in rabid jingiosm, hides it's problems under the rug, tried to portray itself as a paradise, and get's laughed at by the civilized world as a poor, backward and paranoid nation.Hkelkar 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I also believe that paks are confused about their identity. I think they have a hard time choosing whether they are Indian or they want to be arabian?  Do they want islamic sharia law or commonwealth law.  They look upon islamic invaders as heroes even though those same invaders came and raped their ancestors and coverted them.  they're all about jatt/ punjabi/ rajput pryde even though the rajuts started out as hindu and sikhs were being slaughtered wholesale by the moguls.  I think education is the key to solving this problem.  that and separation of church and state.--D-Boy 00:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Separation of religion and state in Pakistan???? It's more likely for aliens from planet Glarbon to land their spaceship in the middle of Waziristan and do a belly dance to an audience of hookah-smoking Pukhtun poppy-seed dealers.Hkelkar

There is no room in the official historical narrative for questions or alternative points of view which is Nazariya Pakistan, the Ideology of Pakistan—devoted to a mono-perspectival religious orientation. This, as opposed to nearly a sizable of Pakistan up at arms to separate from the state (*cough Balochistan *cough), with '''another fraction run by the Taliban and Osama, the remaining half full of jingoist whackos spreading hate against Hindus and Christians and selling anti-semitic Jew-hating conspiracy theories on every street-corner in Lahore(Pakistan: In the Land of Conspiracy Theories, PBS). .Gee whiz, what a paradise! Hkelkar 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)''' Here's your Xenophobia.Hope I didn't scare you by revealing all the racist stuff you posted along with demonizing Pakistanis.Nadirali 05:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali


 * Oh for goodness sakes. Wikipedia is not a message board. You've both violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I think both these users could use a short time-out. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 05:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your being fair. Just like to point out that nadirali has professed to sockpuppeteering and done some post-mediation baiting in my talk page (to which I shall not respond).This, after it was HE who said he would instigate edit-warring with the assistance of Siddiqui (and, presumably,his own socks), not I. Hkelkar 06:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, Nadirali persists in coterie formation with Pakistani nationalist editors even after being warned, effectively making threats against other editors (intent to mass-edit-war).Hkelkar 06:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Im not going to say much.But people should know that it was not I who started the personal attacks.And regarding the "formation",that's exactly what Hklelkar and his fellow nationalists do by posting together and attacking other wikipedians such as me.That's all I have to say.ThankyouNadirali 22:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

To pipe in, I've had conversation with this fellow a few times and his tone seems to me to be unapologetically contentious, xenophobic, paranoid, rife with a sense of persecution, ultra-nationalistic, anti-Indian, anti-Hindu, and generally trollish. Top that off with bad spelling, grammar and punctuation/space usage, and a strong inclination to delete other people's comments on talk pages and/or edit them (by changing copy or interspersing his own commentary), and I am beginning to think this guy is going to be a thorn in the side of most people he decides to disagree with (which it seems is most people). He demonstrates a lack of good faith and a willingness to play tit-for-tat over perceived slights (i.e., comments that disagree with his opinions or make note of his behavior). Taking him at face value he seems to be genuine in his rationale, and not just being disruptive for sport. But he should probably be watched closely and given more serious consequences for continuing his unpleasant behavior.

By the way, some of the comments above ARE baiting, and not constructive. If you don't like this guy's approach, don't comment on his background. Comment on his approach. I understand that discussions of South Asian religion and politics can be rocky, but don't feed a troll like this guy. If you want to debate these issues, at least keep ad hominem comments out of it. Erielhonan 01:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Hkelkar is banned for a year for other reasons. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I read the case against him,but I dont want to get mixed up in any of thisNadirali 15:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

user:kronecker
please warn him, again. He keeps changig my userboxes constantly. He already was warned, but he doesn't stop.--Tresckow 02:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Warned with test4. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He responded to me with this: Hiya, thanks for the 'last warning'. Upon looking over you're talk page you seem to be a pretty poor administrator. By the time you've read this, I will have fixed Tresckow's user page again. I do believe a blocking is in order. Cheerio; you're a complete and utter dick. And since he vandalized Tresckow's page again, I blocked him 48h for vandalism and personal attacks. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse 48 hours, at the very least. -Patstuarttalk 15:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Embargo's userpage again
I've just gave a fresh block (24h) to User:Embargo for his persistent addition of provocative anti-Jewish cartoon and material. I've warned him a few times but he couldn't abide by the rules. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest   <font style="background: orange">Wiki me up ®  19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As his only articlespace edits are to change 'Allah' to 'God' repeatedly in Hezbollah, I suggest making it indefinite next time if he doesn't show some sign of being useful. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No doubt about that. Of course. I'll be watching him. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest  [[Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg|10px]] <font style="background: orange">Wiki me up ®  19:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I missed this when posting below, don't know how. I don't think there should be any tolerance at all, in the slightest, for this sort of thing - it should be straight to indefinite. Palmiro | Talk 22:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The editor has made no useful contribs, and appears to be using WP as a forum for hate-speech. I would strongly support an indef block until this newcomer demonstates a bit more understanding of what we are not. Doc  Tropics  22:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse an indef. blocking per Doc. WP's NOT a soapbox and this is particularly the case for hateful displays. 02:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * pgk had contacted me for a block revision (not being done properly) before endorsing it. I than left an explicit detail on the abuser's talk page. In that you'd see that i noted i'd follow the recommendations of the other admins at the noticeboard if he comes back w/ the same userpage today or if he'd not abide w/ our policies and guidelines. We'll see what would happen then. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest  [[Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg|10px]] <font style="background: orange">Wiki me up ®  12:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Request block for editor who repeatedly inserts attacks
has been engaged in a pattern of attackish and, in some cases, particularly vicious insertions into articles. He has been blocked once for 48 hours for PA and vandalism. His insertions include something he's just done for the second time: And this less recent, but repeated and more vicious attack: I'd suggest a week, and next time indefinite. This guy's contributions are mostly vandalism and stuff like above.--Kchase T 02:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * X has a grandson named Y who is very promiscuous and is a flaming homosexual. He tends to have several lovers at one time, which has led to him contracting Herpes.
 * A, B's son is a gigantic, bleeding vagina who joined PETA and is a vegetarian. He brings pain upon himself because he is stupid. So don't feel bad for him. He is also an asshole. Some describe B as a cancerous tumer on society.
 * Blocked indefinitely (not by me). You can report cases like these to WP:AIV for a faster response. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse indefinite. I've also blanked the names as posted here, as there's no reason to spread this stuff further, and suggest deleting the edits. Newyorkbrad 02:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. Next time I won't post names when re-posting the attacks. I've got about 55 hours before I get the bit, so somebody else will have to do the legwork of deleting the edits from the articles.--Kchase T 02:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Now, now, don't go counting your chickens ... you're only at 45/0/1 at the moment. :) Newyorkbrad 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone please delete these edits from the article histories. Newyorkbrad 04:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've nuked both articles and restored what I could. If someone could make sure I've gotten it all, that would be lovely. Mackensen (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User:DaffyDuck619
I just blocked User:DaffyDuck619 for a 3RR violation at Films considered the greatest ever. This is Daffy's 11 7th block since June. As such, I made the block indefinite because I see little evidence that Daffy is trying to play by the rules. As I have had my own problems with this user in the past, I'd like other admin to review the block. I'd also like to hear opinions as to how long this user should remain blocked. BTW, I also blocked User:CovenantD for 24 hours as part of this incident. -- Samuel Wantman 02:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Daffy has responded to the block with a legal threat. -- Samuel Wantman 02:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone beat me to it, I think, but an indef block was definitely the right move, given the legal threat. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As he continues his incivility and legal threats on his Talk page, I have protected it. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Without trying to sound pedantic, he has 7 - excluding unblocks and reblocks. I only looked it up because I blocked him a while ago. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, my mistake. How many is too many? -- Samuel Wantman 09:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse. I wouldn't necessarily say 7=indef block, but the temper tantrum afterwards (and the message right before it by Luna) just show this user to be unable to handle himself properly on here. -Patstuarttalk 13:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He also accuses another editor of wanting to have sex with him. Frankly the guy is a waste of space - people like that never turn around into productive editors. --Charlesknight 14:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse, waste of our time, move along. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Copying and pasting Sam Blanning's comment. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest   <font style="background: orange">Wiki me up ®  14:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse as well; I'm having difficulty finding any redeeming contributions amongst the mass of nonsensical edits (some bordering on vandalism), personal attacks and general incivility. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 14:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking complaint
User 71.139.38.76  continues to Wikistalk (I reported this before and he was warned on Dec 9). Latest examples: Anti-Americanism blanked out non-controversial summary of a major scholarly article. (calling it POV); Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. blanking section on Kennedy connection with McCarthy for maybe 35th time; Timeline of United States diplomatic history as of Revision as of 00:00, 9 December 2006 removed many substantive edits I made under the fake subject heading "typo." The stalking is seen in numerous edits just after I finished mine on topics from Megan Marshak to Know Nothing to Henry Morgenthau, Jr. and Republicanism in the United States in the last three days. Add United States presidential election, 1968 He's checks what I edit then blanks or reverts--stalking-- and he's a nuisance to Wiki. Rjensen 10:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've had a brief look at some of the IP contribs and i am afraid to note that it is more a content dispute than a wikistalking. Try to discuss the issues at the talk pages or at his talk page and see where it would lead. Please feel free to correct me if i am wrong. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest  [[Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg|10px]] <font style="background: orange">Wiki me up ®  12:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Block evading socks
User:Nintendude is creating sockpuppets for vandalism again. User:MKoltnow tagged them (I've mostly stopped tagging his socks because I think he enjoys the attention... or he's just not a very creative vandal). Is it possible to block his IP from user creation and editing (he's mostly on a static cable from what I can see). At what point would that be warranted?--Isotope23 14:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This guy is a real pain. I would say it's time to ask for an underlying IP block, as he seems to be doign this as much just for the WP:DENY effect as anything. -Patstuarttalk 15:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Where would I go about asking for that? I've got pretty good evidence of his underlying IP... I agree this is a WP:DENY issue, which is why I stopped tagging his socks.--Isotope23 15:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)