Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive190

User:Pejman47 & Disruptive Editing
User:Pejman47 consistently reverts pages without discussing on the talk page, despite being told to join the discussion. The lack of communication has, unfortunately, made "disruptive" become the best description for his editing habits. Here are examples:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
 * , was told not to.
 * didn't discuss on talk page, hence.
 * didn't discuss on talk page, hence.
 * no discussion, reminded.
 * Directly told.

Azerbaijan
 * without responding to anything on talk page, hence.
 * Directly told.
 * still without discussing, hence.
 * completely ignored reminder.

These are the instances that I have run into with this user. Note that, as of this post, he hasn't spoken about any of these changes on the talk pages and. In sum, I think there needs to be a consequence for this kind of disruptive and nonconstructive editing. The Behnam 23:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I have read all the talk page of Azerbaijan article and aware of the discussions and I have contributed to the talk page in 28 ,19 January recently (didn't you see that?)
 * about Ahmadinejad article it is totally biased towards warmongers; they didn't even mentioned in the lead that he is at most the second "decider" in Iran after Ali Khamenei, (beside the meaning of the "president"). It needs total rewrite and I didn't have time till next weekend and must get help from some other editors, too. Till then I think the tag of (which I was reverting it) must be there. take care.--Pejman47 07:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding what either of these edit wars is about: you're moving text from one part of the article to another, and people are reverting back. What's the problem here that everyone is reverting each other? Part Deux 07:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Pejman hasn't been discussing these edits despite numerous requests through edit summaries and talk page. The Behnam 07:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Since there's already a report here I'd like to point out an ad-hominem personal attack from this user during an AfD discussion GabrielF 21:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * it that really a personal attack? --Pejman47 02:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP keeps spamming controversial links into Brian Mclaren and has violated 3RR
I found this out at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. An anon IP Special:Contributions/198.77.238.254 has apparently been doing this for two days and user User:Virgil Vaduva, who is rightly reverting the spamming as a violation WP:BLP, is tiring. Would someone kindly ban anon IP for 3RR? Thanks! CyberAnth 06:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you heard of ? Continuously adding links despite being reverted, even if the links are not advertising in themselves, classifies as spam. Just for your information, this guy stopped on the 29th Jan, and it's the 31st today ... ? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Blush. Did not notice the date. CyberAnth 07:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems, I've done the same before. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Libel and legal threats at User:Azer Red/ED discussion page
User:Azer Red/ED discussion page was recently nominated for deletion at Mfd. As the page contains libellous statements regarding the Encyclopedia Dramatica website and its owners, along with legal threats, I've repeatedly attempted to tag it for speedy deletion. Apparently libel is something we vote on now, rather than deleting it on sight. I'd appreciate it if an admin took a look at the page in question. --- RockMFR 07:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What libel statements? Saying that posting personal contact information on Wikipedia contributors and calling specific Wikipedia editors pedophiles and various other things is a possible violation of their hosting provider's TOS is libel? I have !voted for deletion and regret stooping to counter obvious trolling on that page but calling it libel is equally a violation of WP:LEGAL. This page was a discussion on how to prevent off-site abuse until ED turned up out of no where. I guess MONGO wasn't wrong about the ED sleeper accounts. MartinDK 07:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not libel. So just forget RockMFR said that.  The page specifically said it was gathering information for a class action lawsuit.  That's the kind of legal threats that Wikipedia shouldn't be hosting. SchmuckyTheCat 07:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And it no longer does, it was deleted. Milto LOL pia 07:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree SchmuckyTheCat and I apologize for taking part in this disruption of Wikipedia even if it started as a good faith attempt to protect editors/administrators from being abused. Thanks for reminding me to stay cool when things get heated, I needed that. Sorry to the community for feeding the trolls even if I was heavily provoked to do so. MartinDK 07:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, np. There are trolls on both sides anytime anything related to ED shows up on Wikipedia. SchmuckyTheCat 07:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you're half right. --Calton | Talk 11:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was certainly potentially libellous - the article was making probably invalid claims that the owners of ED had violated the law. Thanks to the admin who took care of this. --- RockMFR 07:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the website is no longer allowing completely open editing, the mods there are responsible for the content. But that is water under the bridge since the real way to get rid of that website only involves applying enough pressure at the right pressure points.--MONGO 08:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey folks. I deleted the page last night speedily after much consideration as an attack page. It's purpose was to collect information to disparage its subjects. The subjects may be reaping what they've sewn, but two wrongs don't make a right and we don't need that kind of counter-attack on Wikipedia. Encyclopedia Dramatica is all about the "lulz of drama." Pages like this only feed the trolls the drama they want and belong off-wiki, especially if any talk of legal action is involved. There is really no need to mention ED on here anymore, even if you're upset that they're talking about you or other users in their uncyclopedic fashion. Don't slow down to gawk at the car wreck. Happy editing to all. Teke ( talk ) 18:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For those very reasons and the fact that this continues to feed the trolls over there I suggest this thread is closed as well. I would do so myself but I don't know how to do that. MartinDK 20:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Obscene username & possible sockpuppet abuse
, a new user recently blocked for revert warring, is following the pattern of editing of , an account that appears inactive after an IP check at Requests for checkuser/Case/RJII determined a possible link to the banned RJII.

Note I am not requesting an IP check here. Irrespective of the disruption and possible sockpuppet abuse of "All Male Action," the account should be banned on the basis of policies prohibiting obscene usernames. If "All Male Action" returns with a permissible name, an IP check may be then carried out on the new account. 172 | Talk 15:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

em.. could you explain what is obscene about that name? I might be very dim but I don't actually seen anything there I would call obscene? --Fredrick day 15:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Err, maybe that it sounds like the title of a porno movie? It is arguable, but do we want to go there?--Ramdrake 16:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fredrick day, the term is a sexual slang. If you insist on confirming this for youself, try turning off the adult filter the internet search engine you use and doing a search. I am not interested in testing this myself. For one, I have little doubt the term is a sex slag; and I don't want to view lots of gay pornography. Ramdrake, you don't have to "go there" to confirm the meaning. Use common sense to figure out what it is an obscene username. 172 | Talk 16:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes - look at the filth in the first link that google gave me. --Fredrick day 16:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And how about the 2nd - 10th? So a band decided to name themselves after male pornography.  That doesn't change that "All Male Action" generally refers to male pornography.  Whether you want to call it obscene is another matter. --Onorem 16:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how a reference to being gay is offensive? Can those who think it is please elaborate?-Localzuk(talk) 16:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For crying out loud, are there people watching this page just to be difficult? I can't believe I've had to do this... This is what comes up on an image search. Turn off the safe search filter. Warning: The results are-- no surprise-- gay pornography. And, no, Localzuk, the name is not offensive because it is a reference to being gay. It is offensive because it is a pornographic term. 172 | Talk 16:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't this same test apply just as readily to Wang as offensive? Bitnine 17:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think the name is offensive, submit it to WP:RFCN, I don't see it as offensive, sounds like a bunch of firemen putting out a fire, or maybe a wrestling match. hehe. Porno movies have taken lots of good terms, No Man's Land refers to an area between combatants that neither hold, water-sports refers to water fun, or umm other stuff,, Scat is a type of singing form the 30s, and All male action can be many innocent things too, porno likes to steal real words. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't familar with RFCN. I started work on Wikipedia long before all these specialized pages were created. Also, HighInBC, what you say, as Onorem has already written, "That doesn't change that "All Male Action" generally refers to male pornography." 172 | Talk 16:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to deny it's pornographic meaning, just saying it is subject to interpretation. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd vote for a block per WP:USERNAME. It definitely connotes pornography. If the primary interpretation of a term is going to be offensive, then it's a good idea to ask the user to change it. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like he's been indef blocked, so point mooted. That being said, perhaps in these cases people could stop by the talk page of a user with a questionable name and ask if they wouldn't mind changing it. I was going to do it myself, but saw he was already blocked. IronDuke  18:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd leave a note to a new user making constructive edits. But all along I knew about the sockpuppet connection, leaving me unsympathetic. 172 | Talk 18:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism at Phenylketonuria
This article has been vandalized. i only use Wikipedia for research, i'm not an editor and i wonder why can't i find a way to report a vandalized article, perhaps a button that directs a message to the editor of the article would be suficient. Anyway, the vandalized page is this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylketonurias in the chapter: History - the text ends with meaningless writing. Thank you for your atention — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.244.1 (talk • contribs)
 * It's been reverted. Thank you for reporting it. If you need help learning how to edit here, please feel free to message me. Jeffpw 20:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Death threat or crystal ball?
While reverting the vandalism of I came across this gem. I'm not sure if this is the right place for reporting this sort of vague threat directed at no one in particular. Burlywood 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think someone's just being "clever." No names or other specifics were cited, so I would just warn the user and watch what they do in future. &spades; P  M  C  &spades; 20:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just someone playing around. 'd. We can do without such behavior. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia has decided it is in Wikipedia's best interests to welcome those who are here for disruption. Cplot harassment account made four edits, the last being a test3 vandalism warning to my talk page, and at the same time, Miltopia decided to welcome him. I'd appreciate a neutral third party remind Miltopia that welcoming those who are here for disruption is disruptive.--MONGO 06:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My experience with Miltopia on Encyclopedia Dramatica has been that he generally tries to tone down anti-Wikipedia activity. I have personally tried to create attack pages on ED and have been reverted by him. Look at this: . He's actually getting on some of their nerves because of this. He also mediates disputes between users. I know that you don't like ED, MONGO, but Miltopia really isn't the person to go after here.--Desnm 06:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * None of what you posted has anything to do with the fact that he decided to welcome an obvious vandal after that vandal left a ridiculous warning on my talkpage. Please use your real account next time you post here if you want any credibility.--MONGO 07:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no other account I can use.--Desnm 07:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So warned. Based on the times of the edits, I think it's unlikely that he posted the welcome at 03:22 after seeing the troll edit to your talk page, also at 03:22, but I'll bet he saw the earlier edits. Thatcher131 07:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, the vandal account made an edit at 22:22, Miltopia welcomed him at 22:22 and a User:PullToOpen tagged the account with a sock tag at 22:22. Miltopia simply has my talkpage watchlisted and decided to welcome the vandal soon as he saw the vandalism to my talkpage. The times are all in the same minute, but Mitopia was on line and had just made an edit a few minutes before.(22:22 CTZ in U.S., sorry about that)--MONGO 07:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's certainly possible. Thatcher131 07:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also possible that I was watching WP:AN, having edited there recently and saw his comment, tried and failed to revert it (got beat to the punch, see below) and figured he was about to get banned anyway. Furthermore, it's also possible that I care so little for MONGO that he could go on a 3 month wikibreak and the only hint I would have of his departure is the lack of pointless threads on ANI about me.  Milto LOL pia 10:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If, in fact, you do try to tone down the garbage on ED, any chance you can work with somebody to get that disgusting crap about Sceptre out of there? The kid is 15, for God's sake.  User:Zoe|(talk) 16:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I may get lynched for saying it, but in the interests of Wikipedia, someone has to - whatever happened to assuming good faith? Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 07:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So, welcoming an vandal account is not disruptive?--MONGO 08:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. He was banned.  The welcome had zero effect whatsoever.  Milto LOL pia 10:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As much as I never thought I would ever say this, I'm with Miltopia on this one. ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 10:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whilst welcoming a blatant vandal isn't the most productive use of time, it will do no harm; it's certainly not disruptive, and this seems like a complaint with no grounds. Proto ::  ►  12:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Posting a welcome message to a vandal account is certainly not disruptive. I often see someone vandalize, and give them a welcome message as a sort of "Hey, we can see you!  Why not edit constructively?" wake-up call.  It's sometimes more effective than a test1.  I've certainly welcomed people, only to have my welcome message replaced in a mintue with indefblockeduser or whatever it's called, when someone else pegged them as a sock of some banned user. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The complaint wasn't that a welcome message was posted. The complaint was this particular user, with this particular history and with a recent ArbCom decision decided to welcome a troll that was harassing MONGO.  Coincidence? Maybe the first time.  Maybe even the second.  But this is about the twentieth "coincidence."  It iwll be a nice reference for the next coincidence.  --Tbeatty 06:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I hadn't appreciated the context of the situation when I made my above comment. I was reacting to the idea that welcoming a vandal is automatically disruptive, but now I see that there's more going on than that, and I agree that this particular welcome message was a bad idea.  I hope that Miltopia finds a way to contribute here without aggravating any situation around MONGO, and I hope that if he does find that way, the community is able to believe it, and accept his presence here.  I hope we all are able to edit in ways that de-escalate conflicts and reduce drama. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Desnm created that account to defend Miltopia, first edit, sure knows a lot about me! It's also possible that Miltiopia could be indefinitely blocked from this website and it would be of nothing but benefit to this website...I see zero constructive edits. Peter Dodge and Proto shouldn't be defending disruptive behavior here as this isn't a playground.--MONGO 16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would very much appreciate it if you would explain how this disrupts anything significant. It was a waste of space and of time, certainly, and not a serious or wise action, to be sure, but the only disruption that it appears to have caused for users other than Miltopia is this very acerbic section. Is there need for such hostility here? Calling for community banning of a user, discounting the entirety of the user's contributions to Wikipedia, making insinuations regarding sock puppet abuse, admonishing users for having an opinion that differs from your own - are such actions really necessary over such a minor issue? Think for a moment about the situation - is all of this hostility warranted for putting a welcome template put on a vandal's talk page? --Philosophus T 16:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no hostility on my part. I have done nothing wrong except inform the community that Miltopia is still being disruptive. The vandal account he welcomed was created by Cplot, who has created the largest sock army I have ever seen on wikipedia, and who has been vandalizing numerous pages for months now. Desnm creates an account and his/her first edit is here to defend Miltopia and knows a lot about me and you tell me that isn't a sock account of someone? Simply put, we don't aide and abet vandals by welcoming them on their talkpages. It's not like this is the first time Miltopia has been supportive of disrution, or been so himself.--MONGO 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But again, how is this disruptive? I don't see how it aides and abets vandals, besides the possibility that it could be seen as a symbolic gesture. It's not like the welcome is "Welcome to Wikipedia! Here is a guide to vandalism and here are some pages that could be vandalised". --Philosophus T 20:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * MONGO, can you just drop it? No one has responded any of the times you or Hipocrite have tried to get me banned.  I don't go around complaining about you, so why don't you just find something else to do?  Milto LOL pia 20:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you please explain how posting welcome on a vandal account's page is disruptive? It's just a boilerplate welcome, not an endorsement of any particular misbehavior. &mdash;Dgiest c 07:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WHOOPDEDOO
I had just tried to revert him on WP:AN and had been beaten to the punch by someone with rollback. I welcomed him as a joke, knowing he would be banned. Not particularly constructive, but nor was it destructive. It has nothing to do with MONGO. Everything Desnm said is true. Stop making a federal case out of nothing. Milto LOL pia 10:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And that was smart in what way, exactly? Guy (Help!) 15:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The question is, who cares? And why?  The answer is nobody except MONGO and... I don't know about the second one.  Milto LOL pia 20:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the mistaken impression that nobody but MONGO cares if you troll him and deliberately provoke drama. You may well be wrong in that. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * MONGO is irritated by my mere presence; there's nothing I can do about that. I don't care about MONGO at all, so I ignore him whenever possible and don't give any thought to walking around eggshells for him.  I can't and don't care to change the fact that MONGO doesn't like my presence; only he can do that.  Milto LOL pia 00:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strictly as a matter of fact, there are around a thousand of us who could, if you continue as at present, actually change that, by the simple mechanism of ensuring that MONGO no longer has to put up with your presence. Just so you know. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of wondering why Milto hasn't been 'sploded yet, but I'm far too apathetic to bother beyond that. HalfShadow 23:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we not go there? I'd be happier if this were just dropped.  Milto LOL pia 20:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Now really, I'm sorry, are you guys going to blame MONGO for saying that an editor shouldn't welcome a vandal, let alone an editor who has a long-time dispute with MONGO, whom the troll just happened to speak to right before the welcome? It is disruptive, and smacks to me of WP:POINT. Worse, he's making rude comments like it's also possible that I care so little for MONGO that he could go on a 3 month wikibreak and the only hint I would have of his departure is the lack of pointless threads on ANI about me. I have no idea why you guys are sticking up for him - he even admitted he knew the guy was a troll. Having never seen this conflict before, the suspicion of WP:POINT only gets worse when I hear that he's an ED editor, who, from what I understand, has a history of being a pain in the rear end on Wikipedia. Milotopia, if you would just say, "sorry, I won't do it again", would it be that hard? If it was just a joke and not a big deal, then why the need to argue back and make a scene (PS sorry for editing anonymously, I'm trying to take some time off, and this is the closest I could get myself to do). 146.186.44.199 22:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No really. The second step of Dispute Resolution is to disengage.  Please try that now.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

First point is that Miltopia, on being unblocked, was given the condition that he was to stay as far away from MONGO as possible. (His early edits were trolling and wiki-stalking MONGO.)

Second point is that Miltopia was involved in the pages relating to MONGO's RfAr, so he most certainly knows that MONGO has been very badly stalked and harassed by Cplot, even if Miltopia doesn't think that's a problem. (LOL, Loldongs, LULZ, Duh, Whoopeedoo, etc. Hope I got all those words right.)

Thirdly, anyone who is even remotely familiar with this case recognizes Cplot from his edit summaries, and knows that this is a troll engaged in very persistent harassment of another user, and that he is to be reverted and blocked on sight.

I'm not sure what Wizardry Dragon means by reminding people to assume good faith. If he agreed that Miltopia was being provocative, but that we shouldn't take it too seriously, and should just move on, I could understand that, though there has to be a limit to how much harassment of Wikipedians good users should be prepared to condone, and whether good users should be content to see someone in dispute with a harassment victim treating it as a joke. But if that's what he means, I fail to see where AGF comes into it. AGF would apply if we were to think that Miltopia was just checking the new user log, and sending random messages to people without checking their contributions, and had NO idea that this was someone who was trolling MONGO. Miltopia has admitted that he saw OurAnthem's edit, and was going to revert it himself, but was beaten to it. (For the record, I don't have a problem believing that.) In that case, it was in very bad taste. To treat harassment of your opponent as a joke is quite simply inappropriate.

I'm also puzzled by GTBacchus's post about how he himself has welcomed vandals. GTBacchus, you know Miltopia and MONGO have an rather stormy history. You have read that Miltopia saw the edit (and presumably realized who it was, since he has been following the case), and that he welcomed him as a joke. What you say about your own use of the welcome template may be valid, but it's completely irrelevant in this context. Miltopia didn't welcome him in the hope that he'd become a good contributor. He welcomed him in order to make a joke about someone harassing MONGO.

Those who defend Miltopia here seem to be unaware that an action or utterance can change its meaning according to context &mdash; just as "Good afternoon" can be a friendly greeting or a sarcastic rebuke to someone who is late. As Tbeatty says, there are just too many of these coincidences. And those who think it didn't do any harm &mdash; of course it did. It caused ill feeling. Miltopia, instead of saying how uninterested you are in MONGO, and how little you care for what he thinks, perhaps you could try (for your own sake, not for his) to care enough to stop making jokes that you may think are just below what's necessary to get you blocked. Musical Linguist 00:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Musical Linguist, you need to take a look at all these little situations and see what all this nonsense is originating from. These is like, the sixth time I've had to stop what I'm doing and troop off to ANI to dispel general mischaracterization and/or paranoia from other users.  It's alarming that I managed to brush off MONGO for over a month and avoid him completely, save for these truly boring threads, and you still think I'm the one with the personal vendetta here.  I don't see anyone else being followed to articles, WP:AIV, and several other pages.  And you dragging up old junk already looked at by arbcom is only prolonging this.  Are you interested in seeing this nonsense die out, or in re-debating every edit of mine, over and over, until you get the desired result?  Milto LOL pia 05:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oi vey, can everyone just stop the drama already? Just get a clue.  No one is out to get me, you, MONGO, Miltopia, or anyone else for tha matter.  This whole issue is a massive failure to assume good faith, and I'd ask all involved to do so.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 05:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no loss of good faith here. The question remains as to if Miltopia is here for purely constructive purposes. When editors knowingly welcome those that vandalize, this is not constructive. The best thing to do with repeat vandalism is to block and ignore, not welcome them. That you would see it otherwise is surprising. Miltopia has had to stop his work to come here over the last week three times I see, not just this time and not just because of my report alone. IF Miltopia was doing nothing but constructive edits, then there wouldn't be any complaints to the contrary. That is not the case, however. Furthermore, not sure what has happened since, but anti-Semitic nonsense may be the norm on ED, however threads such as this are not welcome here. Wikipedia does not tolerate bigotry or find puns on people's religion or ethnicity acceptable. If Miltopia can make adjustments to his contributions then there won't be any reason for him to have to respond here.--MONGO 06:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm replying to Musical Linguist's paragraph directed to me. I don't know who "Cplot" is and have no knowledge of that user's harassment of MONGO.  When I commented, I was simply replying to the idea that welcoming a vandalizing or trolling editor is automatically disruptive.  I disagree with that principle, and I said so.  You say I had read that he posted the welcome message "as a joke", but in fact I hadn't scrolled down that far when I made my comment.  I reacted to what I had just read.  I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I think "joke" welcome messages are a good idea.  It's certainly not how I use the welcome template.  If I knew that my comment was irrelevant, I wouldn't have made it, certainly. I would also reply to MONGO's comment above that Miltopia's noting of the Bruchim template is somehow antisemitic.  Have you read the TfD?  It's pretty clear to me that Miltopia saw the template, thought it was in absurdly bad taste, and showed it to his friend.  The TfD agreed that it was absurd, and that's why it's deleted now.  I'm not sure how you're seeing antisemitism there, but if you already think that someone is antisemitic, I guess you'll see what you look for. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was too hasty in assuming that you knew the history of the Cplot harassment when you made your post, and for that, I apologize. I know nothing about the Bruchim matter, but would suggest that Miltopia would be less likely to cause suspicion if he refrained from jokes about a situation that many Wikipedians are rightly upset about, and if his reaction to accusations could be a little less provocative and flippant than LOL, Duh, cool it, and WHOOPDEDOO. I would also suggest that for someone who comes from a website that harasses Wikipedians, but who wants to edit seriously here and to be regarded without suspicion, it's not enough to claim to have no intention of antagonizing the people trolled by that website; it's also necessary to have an intention not to antagonize them. Musical Linguist 23:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're only reading the part of that thread that you want to read. Miltopia posted a WikiProject logo that he noticed that is used to welcome editors who may be interested in the Judaism WikiProject on User:K37 talkpage. K37 responded "The hell? LOOOOOOOOOOOOL" LOL is laughing out loud of course. Miltopia then suggests K37 should post it to talk pages on persons who may be Jewish "Start using it on Jewish n00bs plz". K37 responds as to how he is supposed to know who is Jewish on the internets...read the thread. I am well aware that ED enjoys and supports lampooning all religions and ethnicities and was merely pointing out that since this is Wikipedia and not ED, the same kind of behavior here is much less likely to be seen as a playful pun. In fact, this kind of behavior certainly appears to be more akin to the disruption for which I myself and a number of editors associate Miltopia with. Thanks.--MONGO 04:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I read the whole thing. I know what LOL means, too.  I didn't take Miltopia's suggestion at face value; I read it as pointing out how ridiculous the template was, and not a serious suggestion that K37 use the template on "Jewish n00bs" pages, because, as K37 pointed out, how would anyone know whether a "n00b" is jewish?  That's why the template was absurd, and that's the observation they were sharing.  Nobody was lampooning a religion.  The template was, in fact, absurd.  I laughed out loud when I saw it, too, and I wasn't laughing at Judaism or Jews.  I was laughing at an absurd template. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're still not looking at the entire thread. Miltopia posts the WikiProject Judaism welcome template on K37's talk page. K37 responds: The hell? LOOOOOOOOOOOOL, Miltopia then suggests he post on on other Jewish editors talkpages....etc. All I see is a suggestion, in all liklihood in jest, that K37 should start welcoming Jewish editors by inviting them to join the Judaism WikiProject, even though I see no reference that either one of them are Jewish and the fact that Jews are routinely mocked on the ED website, a website that he, K37 and you apparently, are involved in. Miltopia needs to wear his wiki hat when he is here and cease being disruptive.--MONGO 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh. I'm talking about the entire thread, and have been all along.  The content of the jest was that it's ridiculous to have a special template for welcoming Jews when this is the Internet and you can't tell if someone's Jewish.  Every line of dialogue that you cite was saying that.  ED doesn't mock Jews; it mocks antisemitism, by caricaturing it and showing it to be absurd; many ED editors are Jewish.  I agree that Miltopia shouldn't be disruptive here, and I've repeatedly given him advice to that effect; I don't think that pointing out absurdity to his friend on his friend's talk page is disruptive. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you...if he is not being disruptive, then there wouldn't be a need for you to have to "repeatedly given him advice to that effect". Best wishes.--MONGO 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming Colbert vandalism
Maybe someone can regulate new user creation? (limit to 1/5 seconds or something) --N Shar 07:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just shoot first and ask questions later . Hbdragon88 07:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, any page with "reality" in the title is being hit. BV warnings. ARGH.  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 07:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea ... that's the way to discourage users from signing up :(. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They aren't here for constructive business, we don't need these people around. – Chacor 09:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, misread that, I thought at first that Yuser's comment was in response to Kathryn. – Chacor 10:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Speaking of "shoot first, ask questions later" - do we actually need indefs? (I did a few myself this morning, but am having second thoughts.) Normally we consider one-time vandals to be reformable, don't we? Wouldn't the "commodity" prank go stale anyway within a day or two, so that there'd be little likelihood these guys would try it again later? What was the experience with the elephants? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The elephant thing lingered for a few weeks. --Core desat  18:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * While Core desat  is right, the initial orgy of vandalism did die down after a few weeks, the African elephant article still gets Colbert'red pretty regularly. It had to be fully protected again today after the same old joke. My humble opinion is that we should take a fairly hard line against this kind of stuff. Is it too much to hope that if enough Colbert wannabees get indef blocked, they'll start realizing they're being manipulated and be angry at Comedy Central, not Wikipedia? (And no, I won't get offended if you call me "naive", although I prefer "unrealistically optimistic".) -- Satori Son 18:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as a quick note, the reason it was targeted yesterday and today is because Colbert mentioned it again last night. —bbatsell  ¿?  19:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realize that. Very annoying. -- Satori Son 19:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're naive, Satori. I think we need to take a hard line against this stuff. People who really want to contribute to Wikipedia can sign up and behave like human beings.  While initial mistakes are normal while one learns the rules, I'm not for coddling the blatant vandals.  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 20:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sign up? you need to read the front page a bit more closely. Not everyone who is an ip is a vandal - I was an IP for a looong time. --Fredrick day 21:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, believe me, I know it's current policy to allow IP edits. 90% of the vandalism I revert comes from them. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 21:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As do 90% of edits from testers who will one day create accounts and edit correctly... Milto LOL pia 21:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Lo, the poor IP editor - too noble and care free to take thirty seconds to acquire an account. - WeniWidiWiki 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * yeah don't worry - your userpage makes it clear what you think about IP editors - upto and including suggesting we report people who edit from IP addresses to their employers. Maybe you could make a special message out of it. --Fredrick day 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this was the clip in question. I saw that as it aired and immediately hit Wikipedia to see how long it took for the new article to be created, and for it to be locked. I was impressed. -- Kesh 02:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic
Since the warring parties on the Free Republic article seem unable to go a day without opening a new sockpuppet, checkuser, mediation or other process against each other, I have suggested to the three worst offenders - User:BenBurch, User:Fairness And Accuracy For All and User:DeanHinnen, in no particular order - that they leave the article and each other alone for a couple of weeks. If there is any more of the present crap I am strongly inclined to wield the clue-by-four and knock the lot of them out for long enough to give the rest of us some peace. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Having kept an eye on the FR stuff (while being completely out of the loop), I can understand your frustration, Guy, but I don't think both sides are at fault here. It seems to me more like one side gaming the system to drag down the other side to their level. SirFozzie 21:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am only TOO happy to drop it. --BenBurch 21:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion, established by checkuser
A Request for checkuser has revealed that User:BoxingWear has been evading blocks using sockpuppets. (See the case here.) Could an administrator please block him? Thanks, PTO 23:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Indefblocked. Chick Bowen 00:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

MensKeperRa actively lobbying other editors and attempting to vote stack AfD
Recently, this user AfDed Allen H. Greenfield. However, he does not seem to be content to let other editors make up their own minds. After I voted to keep, he lobbied my on my talk page,, and additionally posted a long derogatory screed about the living subject to the AfD. Could someone attempt to get this guy to approach the AfD in a more moderate fashion? He seems to be overly emotionally involved. Jefferson Anderson 23:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a word with MensKeperRa. Hopefully that calms him down somewhat. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:NuclearUmpf (formerly User:Zer0faults)
Nuclear Zer0 has a history of tendentious editing on articles involving the War on Terrorism. A prior Arbcom case against him found that he has "engaged in editwarring and other disruptive editing" and has "failed to negotiate in good faith, engaging in repetitive assertions and circular logic". Since being placed on probation, he has notheless been blocked repeatedly for violations of policy. Now Nuclear Zer0 again resumed disruptive edit-warring on Iraq War and related pages. 

In doing so, he has also falsely-cited a "25-2" poll which he knows is the result of vote-stacking. Two different administrators have declared that poll to be entirely invalid. . To my thinking-- citing a poll you know to be the result of vote-stacking is just as bad as actually engaging in the practice. Worse, in fact, because he's been warned repeatedly the poll was invalid, but continues to cite it, saying the two admins' opinon that the poll was invalid does not override the opinions of the 25 users who voted in it. 

(I have also posted about this matter at Arbitration Enforcment)

Anything that can be done to help stop these behaviors would be greatly appreciated. --Alecmconroy 23:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur - I've observed this as somebody who has NOT edited these articles. He's been a problem.  --BenBurch 23:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes ben sure this has nothing to do with your favorite noticeboard biting the dust? Where did GabrielF Conspiracy Noticeboard go? Please stop acting uninvolved. Whats next Tom Harrison or Tbeatty and Morton? How many GabrielF noticeboard people are going to leave "outside views" of how horrible I am? --Nuclear Zer0 23:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To summon one of us you have to say one name three times, not three different names one time each. Tom Harrison Talk 01:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not a participant there AT ALL. Where did you get that idea? (I did vote that it ought to be deleted though, and that Gabriel F should be blocked for a LONG TIME for having created it.) --BenBurch 00:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See how easy that was? Who is next? Ryan? --Nuclear Zer0 12:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Leave me out of this entirely unproductive campaign. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: Nuclear has apparently admitted working with sockpuppets to falsify consensus. His behavior of aggressive edit-warring on Iraq war is on-going:   -Alecmconroy 06:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Rofl I dont know how many times I and everyone else has to tell you that you need reading lessons. It says that I agreed with the views of Rex who was a sockpuppet, learn to read. Your smear campaign wont deter from the fact that the concensus is growing againts you, your attempts to eliminate people with a different view, through this post, the Arbcom you tried to file on Rangeley and now the RfC you did file against Rangeley is quite a dishonest way of attempting to make a concensus. Use the talk page and stop attempting to push everyone around, you fail at it. --Nuclear Zer0 11:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I may be confused but I am thinking that perhaps using a phrasing like "you need reading lessons" on a noticeboard where a lot of admins hang out is not the best way to avoid getting a block. ++Lar: t/c 01:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Some heavy words towards me
I need some help from some admin willing to communicate with User:Sys Hax, as I believe it no would be productive for me to try it myself.

I tagged the image Image:Abigail brittney hensel twins.jpg as "replaceable fair use" (WP:CSD) some days ago and left him |a (non-boilerplate) message explaining matter. Then, after the 7 days period, the image got ultimatelly by admin Herostratus.

User:Sys Hax wasn't happy with this outcome and left me a harsh message, calling me a "jerk" (edit summary) and "self-appointed bowdlerizing luddite". As I get a lot of such attacks (and as I don't know what "bowdlerizing" means), I decided to ignore it at the time.

Later, User:Sys Hax took some time to contribute to an (already existing) RFC dedicated to my persona. There, he developed his thoughts on the image deletion issue and asked "WHY HAS WIKIPEDIA NOT BANNED THIS HOODLUM?". He also took the opportunity to define me as a "punk who would prefer to drive around at night and break off car antennas with a baseball bat". I decided to ignore that too. A good thing from this RFC is that people now has some place other than my talk page to attack me, and I got less "You have new messages" warnings (note that I don't want to imply that this is the sole reason people contributed to my RFC). (btw, I don't know what's a HOODLUM).

Later in the day, he left me another message explaining me I'm a "vandalizing punk who should be banned ", called me an "image vandal" in an article's edit summary, and voiced in this same article's talk page that I'm a "known image vandal" and a "punk who's deleted hundreds of images for fun, always giving a ridiculous, bogus rationale". Also according to him, I "would rather be driving around at night smashing off car antennas with a baseball bat".

After some more time, he decided he needed to left me one more message, calling me an "asshole" (at least an English word that I have already learned!) and explaing me again his theory about "smashing car antennas with a baseball bat". It's funny that in this same message he says that "Judging by the number of complaints filed against (me)", I "won't be an admin very much longer". Well, I'm not and had never been an admin. But anyway, based on this misguided assumption that I am an admin, he goes on to wonder how did I "get to be an admin anyway?", and offers alternatives: "Are you the "catcher" homosexual boyfriend of a real admin, or are you just a pimply high-school social reject who hacked into the wiki admin database with a kiddie-script?".

At this point, I decided he needs help. And that's what I came here to ask for.

Btw, he removed his last message on my talk page, according to his edit summary, to "take (his) concerns to wiki administration".

If someone here is willing to talk to this user about his behavior, I would really appreciate. Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I left a message. Jkelly 03:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So did I. That entire section of that article's talk page had to go with fire. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  15:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you guys for your time. The user seems now a little more calm, as he used no personal attacks (or unknown adjectives) in the two recent messages he left on my talk page. Anyway, judging by his last editions, I believe he's still very annoyed about the deletion of the image he uploaded (and I believe very few editors have seen more complaints from users annoyed with image deletions than I did). Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Disturbing comment
So apparently a WHILE back I was involved in mediating a dispute between a couple of users, and. I don't remember what the outcome of it was, but apparently the result was Devin79 was blocked for personal attacks by pgk. Well, I was recently alerted to this diff here in which the personal attacks continue and Devin79 announces his intention to wikistalk articles I've edited under various IP addresses. I'm a little disturbed by this. Here's the relevant quotation: "All of the above is also relevant to Jdorney's girlfriend SWATJester. SWATJester wouldn't know anything about the SAD if it slapped him upside the head. Having served 4 years as a Force Recon Marine, I would argue that I am far more knoweldgeable about this particular subject then some basement dweller who runs around calling himself 'SwatJester'. I will also be editing his articles with various IP addresses. Both of these little dirtbags can go to hell."

Ignoring the fact that I've been in the army for almost 5 years, including an Iraq tour, and experience with special operations units like 5th SFG, CAG, and liaison work with CIA, this isn't about the content dispute: it's about the announced intention get around his block with IPs to specifically target articles I've worked on. I can't see how this is conducive to the project. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    On Belay!  01:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please review my block
Dear fellows, following User:Biophys accuses and his reverting of the article on Boris Stomakhin I was arbitrarily blocked by English speaking user William Connolley who based his decision on the conclusion of Jkelly.. It is evident that they cannot validate statements of Biophys that I have violated BLP. Is the court sentence is enough reliable source? Official Court Sentence on Russian language dated 20.11.2006 This is now the most important matter in the dispute. By the way, if we would apply the same criteria to Stomakhin supporters statements they should be deleted too since they contradict to official materials, news articles and so on. Biophys wants only his sources to be in the article. It is evident he doesn't consent to any version made by Alex Bakharev, me or Mikka. User: Vlad fedorov.


 * The correct procedure here is to request an unblock, which you have done, and then e-mail the blocking admin. You are far more likely to get a favorable result that way. this could be considered block evasion and result in an extension of your block. MartinDK 09:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see. But the block itself is dubious. The reference for which I was blocked was inserted by other user, I have corrected the reference. I was practically blocked for other user who linked particular phrase in the article to other source which is disputed. Second thing, it is evident that administrator who blocked me just accepted the POV of one person and blocked me, because he can't actually evaluate Russian sources. He blocked me without evaluating any evidence of my wrongdoing which is contrary to blocking policy, he just relied on phrase of other - Jkelly - user, who also is incompetent in Russian. It is evident that both these individuals violated Blocking policy which requires administrators to review the causes before blocking. Vlad fedorov.


 * Here is the procedure from Wikipedia policy
 * Once you are convinced that a block is warranted, the recommended procedure for controversial blocks is:
 * 1. Check the facts with care.
 * 2. Reread appropriate parts of Wikipedia:Blocking policy.
 * 3. Contact other administrators to sanity-check your reasoning, preferably on ANI.
 * 4. After receiving feedback, place the block, wording the "reason" message with care and without jargon, and include a link to the user page of the user being blocked.
 * 5. Place a notice of the block on the talk page of the affected user, with additional rationale, outlining the facts and the part of the blocking policy you feel applies.
 * 6. Stay around to discuss the block with other Wikipedians.
 * 7. If an act or acts of disruption do not warrant a 24-hour block, consider a warning or posting to ANI before issuing a short term block. (Someone may well block them longer than you would have!)
 * 8. If in doubt, don't block.


 * The content dispute has already been debated here. Usually 24 hour blocks aren't brought here for review and especially not when they are being invoked as a result of a decision on AN/3RR. I agree though that this appears to be something that needs the attention of someone neutral who a capable of reading these documents. But that is a content matter and not something for ANI to discuss. MartinDK 10:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that neither Jkelly, or William Connolley have provided any explanations. I would like to know what action could be taken against them? Vlad fedorov


 * I would like to note that I was blocked allegedly 'for violation of living persons biography' and not for 3RR. Therefore it is appropriate place for me to complain see the talk page for User: Vlad fedorov. Vlad fedorov


 * In case there's confusion about the this, I declined to block User:Biophys here, after taking a look at edits like this which were being reverted. Saying of an article subject "He also criticized Russian government in defamatory and obscene statements." without source, as if this was Wikipedia's position on the matter, is both terrible editing and prohibited by our Biographies of living people policy.  As for User: Vlad fedorov's being blocked, I think that William Connolley showed good judgement in doing so.  Mr. Fedorov clearly should not be editing that article; his feelings about the subject appear to be interfering with his ability to write a well-sourced, neutral article in collaboration.  Finally, I don't know why Mr. Fedorov is complaining about the block, given that it clearly didn't stop him from editing the article, which is now currently in its BLP-violating version. Jkelly 18:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ...further comments here. Jkelly 18:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Further comments. User: Vlad fedorov continue violating LP policy, so I had to revert his changes. Main problem is a single citation taken from two unreliable sources and used for defamation of a living person. The source is unreliable because (a) the cited article is not dated (worse than blog); (b) the text of the article (Russian language) is clearly different when compared from two different unreliable sources; (c) the site has no any editorial oversight; (d) the cited text is ridiculous (someone asks Chechehn fighters to start nuclear war against Russian Federation). There are also other problems. None of other users (except Vlad Fedorov) ever disputed my arguments. See also Living persons notice board. Therefore, I ask you to block User: Vlad fedorov permanently from editing article Boris Stomakhin if he continue inserting this citation or other defamatory materials. Biophys 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also see User_talk:William_M._Connolley. Biophys 18:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

May I notice that Biophys reverts edits with completely supported passages and which contain undisputed passages. Look here cur he calls it '(missing references provided - see discussion)'. How could I work when he deletes everything which is sourced?Vlad fedorov 17:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted this because Vlad Fedorov inserted again exactly the same poorly sourced accusations. Biophys 21:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What happened to the mediator for this problem? The article should be stubbed and rebuilt from reliable secondary sources.  Jkelly 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Biophys disputes both primary and secondary sources. Primary source - RKO website, secondary source Izvestia newspaper. Biophys claims that citation in Izvestia contradict to citation in RKO website, although there is a perfect match. Moreover it is strange that Biophys in evaluation of citation from Izvestia newspaper relies on RKO website, which he claimed to be unreliable. Jkelly, please join here to the discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#quote_.22Death_to_Russia.22Vlad fedorov 04:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * By reverting the whole article Biophys deletes other texts supported by citations and not disputed. Moreover, the citations that he calls 'poorly sourced' are not regarded as poorly sourced according to Wikipedia policies. Here is the cur which shows that Biophys deletes actually sourced texts cur.Vlad fedorov 04:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The bottom line is:

'''And now the basic question: where is the controversy? If Biophys claims RKO website is unreliable, then how he uses this website in order to validate Journalist citations?''' Vlad fedorov 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Biophys disputes the phrases not contained in the article on Boris Stomakhin, and namely the phrases about Shahids and about stinky Russia.
 * Biophys disputes these phrases by comparing them to the source he claims to be unreliable (RKO website).
 * one disputed phrase (about Shahids) is contained also at RKO website and match perfectly to that cited by Journalist.
 * Some words from the second disputed phrase (stinky Russia) are contained in both the Official court sentence and conviction.
 * Biophys disputes here only RKO website, which is not relevant to the dispute right now, because we discuss only Izvestia article.
 * Biophys disputes these phrases based on the logic that 'they were probably taken by Maksim Sokolov' from RKO website. But he couldn't know actually.
 * Biophys logic is that all Stomakhin citations should be contained on the RKO website, although we know that there are newspaper 'Radikalnaya Politika' edited by Boris Stomakhin and there are publications of other radicals which could have published citation of Stomakhin in question. I don't understand why Biophys think that all Stomakhin citations should be contained only at RKO website.
 * Biophys failed to show that there are contradictory phrases. Out of three citation by Maksim Sokolov, two are found at the RKO website1 citation at RKO website2 citation at RKO website and they perfectly match those of the Journalist and one (about 'Stinky Russia') is not found, because Journalist haven't provided sources. The impossibility to found right now missing citation is not contradiction to Izvestia article. The fact that this citation couldn't be found does not mean contradiction.
 * The phrase 'worse than blog' is absolutely incorrect in regard of RKO website, since Biophys doesn't have evidence that this site has no any review, Biophys has no information on who runs the website.
 * Journalists have the privilege not to disclose their sources, in order to provide the freedom of speech.


 * It was established in discussion that Biophys claims about contradictions in the sources are false. And there are no contradictions between citations of Izvestia journalist Maksim Sokolov and articles written by Stomakhin at http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm and http://rko.marsho.net/articl/tushino.htm. They match perfectly to those which are cited by journalist Maksim Sokolov. Anyone interested may look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Points_to_answer_for_Biophys and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#quote_.22Death_to_Russia.22Vlad fedorov 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to notice that currently Biophys claims that these sources: 1) Unreliable; 2) not neutral; 3) Non-encyclopedic style. Given the history of Biophys contributions and namely insertion of Putin into 'Phallus' article and creation of the deleted latter article on blog "La Russophobe" I suggest anyone to think one more time about User:Biophys good faith. He contributes only to biophysics and anti-Russian materials. He failed to prove the contradiction - which was the main point of his argumentation. He lied intentionally about contradictions. And he deleted the material which he called "contradictory". Biophys believes that there is a plot (conspiracy) by Russian government against extremist Stomakhin sentenced for extremism]. And Biophys tries to delete from the article on Stomakhin all information that could doubt this thought. My citations prove that Stomakhin actually wasn't dissident since he called for violence, called terrorist attacks legitimate and called Chechen terrorists heroes. He wants now to delete these supported by sources phrases from the article on Stomakhin by claiming they are unreliable. But these phrases are supported not only by the official court sentence.Vlad fedorov 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hilary Clinton
There is a comment in the page on Hilary Clinton which states "She is also the Devil". I believe this to be inaccurate and libelous.

81.132.62.254 23:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This has already been reverted as vandalism Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do like the understatement, though; it's merely inaccurate to say that she's the devil... --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's fair.... Philippe Beaudette 23:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez made clear that we've had the Devil in the White House since 2000, so having her still there in 2008 shouldn't be too much of a shock... -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is going to BJAODN. Daniel Case 05:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Persistent subtle vandalism -- need admin with rollback button
An anonIP, has been defacing Islam-related articles for weeks and it took me till now to catch on. He/she/it alters dates and numbers just a smidge -- enough to make them inaccurate. I've given warnings; we'll see if that will stop it, or if the account will have to be blocked. In the meantime, could an admin with a rollback button revert all the edits that haven't already been fixed? Zora 05:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The anon doesn't seem to have done anything since you posted this, but I'll try to keep my eyes on them. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Peakdetector
This user has been introducing some bad-faith AFD nominations for articles on Gawker Media-owned websites like Gawker and Deadspin. Has been called on it on his talk page. Needs to be blocked or stopped. Daniel Case 05:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hasn't he already stopped? Last edit 19:34, 31 January 2007. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've speedily closed both of those AFDs. --Core desat  06:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Larry Darby again. - suggesting community ban
As one can see by the section a little bit above, there have been serious issues at Larry Darby with User:LarryDarby. Darby has most recently attempted to use a sock puppet User:User:BopBeBop(confirmed by checkuser) to get around WP:COI issues and making nearly identical edits, personal attacks and general claims that Wikipedia is controlled by Jews and Zionists. Example difs include. Most recently, in response to my attempt to give him advice -, he responded with and. At this point, some other admin probably needs to talk him and/or give him a long block for personal attacks and other issues. However, I wouldn't object to treating him as having exhausted community patience. (This was added at/by 20:44, 30 January 2007 JoshuaZ)


 * previous AN/I thread. I asked about this in the above thread, and, as can be seen, Yuser31415 was also concerned about this. I contacted Yusef about this new spate of edits. ThuranX 02:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Due to my interactions with this user, it is now clear he is not here to help, nor to contribute constructively or civilly. I would support a community ban of this user. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It just occurred to me... Given that Mr. Darby has had contact, and an established OTRS case, we should get a link over to those pages ASAP. Those Wikifolk who folllow these things should know what he's done since they tried to work with him. Yes/No? ThuranX 02:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, if Larry is going to cite WP:OFFICE agressively over Larry Darby, I would support deletion and salting that page. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been any OFFICE concern, merely an OTRS matter. No reason to delete at this time. JoshuaZ 02:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, whichever it may be, let's get someone 'up top' notificatiated, so we don't have to suffer through Darby calling again and restarting this mess. ThuranX 02:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I already left a note on the page of the person who answered the OTRS complaint. JoshuaZ 02:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Independent of that we can still decide as a community that we don't want him editing. JoshuaZ 02:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I might note that he himself doesn't want to be editing. Apparently Wikipedia is "propaganda." Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Per this edit, I suspect that Larry has decided to just lash out a lot. More evidence of a need for an indef block? ThuranX 03:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope: that IP resolves to Texas: . Besides, it doesn't seem in character for a guy who's the head of the atheist whatever group from Alabama to type vandalize WP by typing that Colbert stuff. Part Deux 07:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I support an indef block. This guy is clearly here to push an agenda and isn't even trying to hide it. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 04:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What a complete windbag. Support, and admonish the state of Alabama for almost giving this guy a real position of power. (See his article.) Grand  master  ka  04:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also support community ban. Note also that (presumably) he posted "Who is the Wikipedia agent for service of legal process in Alabama?" at the top of his talk page, which might count as a legal threat. Sandstein 06:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, given the above I think we have what indicates a consensus. I am therefore going to block him indefinitely. JoshuaZ 22:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I count three editors for and one against this ban. Am I missing something or does that constitute a consensus?  It is very possible that I'm wrong here, but I thought that community ban was supposed to be a mechanism of absolute last resort.  I thought that temperary bans and strong warnings usually come first.  --Selket 23:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Bans can be made when a user exhausts the patience and trust of the community, by deliberately violating the spirit of the law even if not the letter of the law. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Selket, see the community patience clause of WP:BAN. JoshuaZ 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I had seen that section and it states in relevant part, "Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users." I'm not questioning the action; I'm trying to understand the rule.  Does four or five people constitute "widespread community support" rather than "agreement between a handful of admins or users"? --Selket 04:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reading this section, I see six people supporting the ban (JoshuaZ, J.smith, Grandmasterka, Sandstein, Yuser31415 and ThuranX (if I interpret his/her post correctly)) and noone opposing it. So unless there comes real argumented opposition (not procedural opposition only), I would call this a case of community support for a ban. 09:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no opposition (procedural or otherwise). I'm just trying to understand what the procedure is for future reference.  Thanks. --Selket 09:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Request Semi Protect
The Current Featured article is getting hit left right and center can it please be semi-protected? Æon Insanity Now!  07:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Requests for page protection come to WP:RFP – PeaceNT 07:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon - IP 213.170.207.96
Some other admin might like to keep an eye on this anon., who has turned up today apparently with some sort of axe to grind against Richard Dawkins and biological evolution ... along with a willingness to be uncivil on talk pages. As an affected editor, I don't plan to be the one to give any warnings or take any similar action, though I did suggest to him/her on the talk page of the Dawkins article that it would be an idea to read our policy on no personal attacks. Metamagician3000 07:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Board Game" entry replaced
The Wikipedia entry for "board game" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_game) now reads "Carl Calhoun, from Central Mountain high school in lock haven, pennsylvania was here." I'm not particularly technically proficient, so I wasn't sure what to do about the vandalism but report it here. 24.215.209.66 07:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Dealt with. To fix this crap in the future, see Help:Revert. MER-C 08:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Attended issue
This issue went to the archive without attention. Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive188

Randroide 12:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Randroide, has any administrator taken action about this yet? It would surprise me if someone could just delete 2 weeks worth of discussion from an article talk page without any consequences. Did you restore the posts that were deleted? Further, it seems to me that the policy he cited in deleting applies to articles, and not what is on the talk page. Since you were actively discussing the issue, it should have remained on the talk page, in my opinion. Jeffpw 09:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A quick look over the issue shows the text does still exist (but now on Randroide's talk page). It should not have been excised from the Primal Therapy talk page.  I've asked GrahameKing not to repeat such a removal, noting that any subsequent disruptive removal of valid discussion will result in a block to prevent further occurance.  I will assume good faith and trust he won't do it again.  Randroide, I am sorry that nobody responded to your request the first time around (it does happen, and you did the correct thing in reposting it, civilly).  Proto ::  ►  10:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No Sir: Your look was too kick for a complex issue like this. The text I restored in my own talk pake was from a  different  discussion deletion made by GrahameKing in his/her own TalkPage . That deletion qua deletion has not been reported by me because, well, after all I think that deletion is a private issue among GrahameKing and the other guy. I simply copy-pasted (and linked) the deleted text in my own talkpage just for the sake of preserving data.


 * The deletion reported here by me has not been restored. Please take a look at the (still) "missing" discussion This is the -yet unrestored- deletion reported here by me.


 * From your words, I assume that the deleted text should be restored. I´ll wait 24 hours. If nobody else restores the text, I will do it (I am trying to depersonalize this conflict as much as possible).


 * AFAIAC this incident is closed. Thank you very much, Jeffpw and Proto. Randroide 11:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Substance abuse deletion
Hi, an IP-user has deleted portions of Substance abuse. This seems like something I could fix without being an admin - how do I do that (supposing I just have to undo an edit)? /PER9000 15:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, this guy (User_talk:216.62.85.65) seem to have been warned about vandalism in the past./ PER9000 15:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. In future, click on "history", click on the date of the last good version, click "edit" (it'll warn you that you're editing an old version), and save. This is called "reverting". yandman  15:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to use the edit summary to make it clear to other users what you are doing (even simply "rvv" is better than nothing, "ReVerting Vandalism"). Mathmo Talk 10:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Penis vandalism (real-life)
Real-life effects of penis vandalism.

Maybe this image should go on MediaWiki:Bad image list as no doubt someone will upload it. --SunStar Nettalk 01:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out. Now someone will surely upload an image of it sooner or later. --210 physicq  ( c ) 01:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry. My mistake! --82.42.237.84 01:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC) --SunStar Nettalk 01:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You can barely see the image at (not even visible at google maps); hardly seems worth the mention of all these big articles. Part Deux 10:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please block this user and this ID address
I have already had trouble with User:tinylittletom who was later blocked. I have just checked my userpage to find out his new user A mysterious stranger and 194.106.39.211 have writed insults on my homepage.

I have already put my page back to normal but I'm fed up with this user insulting me in the last week

Please block him

Lyer 08:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is actually an interesting user. Both she and tinylittletom created a deleted article called Podminions . She vandalized his user page as well . She signed a note on his page as A_suyash, an editor that reverted some of his changes on Shilpa Shetty. I don't know if this is even worth looking into, but I have a feeling they're all connected outside of Wikipedia. AniMate 09:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the anon's edits and blocked for six months. I'll look at the user in a minute. Metamagician3000 09:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, Ryulong beat me to it - already blocked indefinitely. That was what I was planning to do after looking at the contribution history, so the block has my support if there's any debate about it. Metamagician3000 09:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why hasn't Lyer been warned about his/her userpage vandalism to tinylittletom? - Mgm|(talk) 09:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The only vandal comment that I can see was evidently self-reverted by Lyer after one minute. If I've misunderstood something, it won't be the first time, but at the moment this does not look like a case of moral equivalence. Metamagician3000 10:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:RolandR autoblocked
Please unblock him. Abu ali 10:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. yandman  10:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Trouble with Editor
I am fairly new here so I am not sure if this is the right way to deal with a user that has been making personal attacks and deleting people's discussions. This person's IP address changes everytime they edit, however, it appears to be the same person. I started out ignoring it in the beginning, but I think it should be looked into. If my request does not belong here that is fine. Then I need some input on the best way to handle this person. RosePlantagenet 14:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * While I certainly think the anon IP's words could be chosen with more care, I don't really see personal attacks going on. On the other issue, that of removing or altering comments of other editors, you are correct. That is bad form, and a warning should be given message should be left on their talk page. I doubt that would have much effect, though, since it is multiple IPs. Jeffpw 15:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, it is probably difficult to warn and even stop an editor when their IP address changes. That was why I did not think much could be done or was even sure if something should be mentioned. I was going to suggest a semi-protection on the page but that seems to be only for the article and not the discussion page. Or a way to keep the editor from deleting people's comments. Thank you very much for looking into it so quickly. RosePlantagenet 15:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, Rose: I am not an admin. I'm just another editor, like you. But I have this page on my watchlist, and I sometimes look to see what the problem is, in order to help if I can. Jeffpw 15:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. As I said, I am just kinda new. But, thank you for trying to help. I went back and removed the rude parts of the editor's statement and kept the rest. And, suggested to them that if they want to help out with the article that is great, otherwise there is no need to delete other people's comments nor talk down to them. I doubt it will do much good but there does not seem to be much else to do at this point. RosePlantagenet 12:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon corrupting sockpuppet tags
I noticed an anon making edits to the sockpuppet tags of a number of other IP users. One suspected sock that turned up a few times was . They have stopped for now but I'm posting here in case someone knows a history I'm not aware of. &mdash;Dgiest c 19:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This guy: was doing it too, but for different sock users.  Then he tried blanking this section. &mdash;Dgiest c 19:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See also:
 * –Gunslinger47 19:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * –Gunslinger47 19:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * –Gunslinger47 19:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Request an indef block of . This account was jsut created with a username similar to mine, reverting the same things  was doing and blanking this section. &mdash;Dgiest c 19:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Request an indef block of, vandalism-only account, SummerThunder sock. &mdash;Dgiest c 00:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Take to WP:AIV. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

202.163.200.153 has been indefblocked by me as an open proxy, per CRBL open proxy listings. Checking the others now. Syrthiss 12:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Others blocked indef too. 193.231 had about the most hits on CRBL that I've ever seen.  I think I need to disinfect my computer just from looking at it. Syrthiss 12:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense addition to Electric Charge
Hello, There have been several postings of nonsense on Electric Charge and i was wondering if user:Ayan2289 is the same as 71.225.220.43, as they have both posted very similar styles of vandalism. If so, then there is repeated vandalism happening by that user/IP. If not, then its just some copycat. Also if this is the wrong board, can someone please point me to the right one before removing it. Thanks User A1 11:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this vandalism is serious enough for a CheckUser at this point. Just continue to revert (as long as you're not violating WP:3RR and if one of them does, you can report them on the proper "board," listed at the top of this one) and warn them if you spot vandalism. :) Once (and if) one gets to a test4, report him/her to WP:AIV.  Srose   (talk)  12:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Vandalism isn't covered by WP:3RR. If it's truly vandalism, just revert. - 131.211.210.11 13:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's not clear-cut vandalism, it's not...and from the way User:A1 is describing this dispute, it doesn't sound very clear-cut.  Srose  (talk)  13:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Srose - Will do : I'd say it's fairly clear cut vandalism/nonsense, Paco didn't name the symbol for electric charge (q) after his favourite food, nor is it named after the fictional character from the bond series. So i think 3RR is not applicable User A1 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My Warning
Hi, I received a Final warning on  my talk page without previous warnings. Is there any way I can remove it or at least get a "first" warning if I did indeed vandalise Mr. User:Paul Silverman? The follow incidences have lead to this: I reverted this edit because I thought he accidentally put the examples on his page. I wrote on the talk page here telling him about the WP:Sandbox. He retaliated and vandalised my user page here even admitting that he was openly vandalising. So I wrote him a first/accidental warning here which caused him to give me my "final warning" here. I've recently read through his talk page to see if there was any information and it's littered with people accidentally editing his page and asking repeatedly for him to respond. Thank you for your time. I hope this gets cleared up because I would rather not like to be banned for something so silly.--Jude 11:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There does appear to be quite a bit of confusion over his user page...which makes absolutely no sense to me. He's made it clear with his edit summaries that he wants the stuff there.  It would be a good idea for people to look at the  page history before editing someone else's user space.  I do agree that giving you a {test4} was inappropriate. I'm assuming that he may have overreacted because he's sick of people blanking his page. --Onorem 12:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As to 'any way to remove' the warning... just do so. Users are free to remove comments/warnings/whatever from their own talk pages if they wish. Doing so frequently or without following up may sometimes be viewed as 'uncivil' or 'sneaky', but even then it is allowed. --CBD 12:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * After looking more closely, you're not the only one who has had their page blanked in retaliation. Geniac and  Calton got it too, while Midnight 7 was simply told his page would have been vandalized, but it was already blank...and mixed in an insult in the process.  I still think that his user page has received an unusual amount of attention, but he's clearly not handling it properly. --Onorem 12:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the warning from User:Onathinwhitelines talk page. The edit was in good faith. Rettetast 13:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:194.63.141.110
I don't quite understand what this user is doing, but I think someone ought to take a look, in case it's not good. – Qxz 13:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Serial spammers like this guy can be reported at WP:AIV if they have the appropriate warnings. PTO 13:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That particular serial spammer was blocked by me for a month. Syrthiss 13:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
Updated discussion above. - Mgm|(talk) 13:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:207.61.144.42
This user keeps vandalizing the Nova Scotia page. The Contribs page shows that this has been an ongoing problem, despite the fact that the IP address has been blocked in the past. Please help! Burnley 13:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I realize that this is posted in the wrong place. Sorry. Burnley 13:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Contributions review requested
I have recently blocked, and wish to get other opinions on an indefinite block. He has asked God to kill James Randi within 30 days (also Larry King, apparently). It seems like there ought to be a no-smiting-request policy to go along with no legal threats. Chick Bowen 00:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Only 24 hours. That looks more like an indefinite unless the user agrees to stop posting that sort of stuff. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I blocked him 24 for the crap on Kim's subpage, before I noticed the James Randi stuff. No one's yet gotten him to say a word on his talk page. Chick Bowen 02:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No smiting requests is a red link that will be turned blue when I have some time. Awesome.  Proto ::  ►  10:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's about time that policy was clarified--I've had my finger on the smite button a couple of times myself. Meanwhile, block extended to indefinite. Chick Bowen 15:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Unwarrented blocking by administrator

 * Good day, I am writing to report what I view to be administrator abuse by the following Wikipedia administrator: User:Lar (talk). The following reasons are as followed:
 * 1.This user began by giving me warnings about the layout of content of the Socialism article. While the user in question came off as well meaning, this user disregarded my own input in the matter while ordering me, with strong language to "take the advice of everyone else". This matter would not be a very big deal in and of itself, but a number of users, most notably WGee engaged in profanity and personal attacks against me, something that was not assessed by the administrator. The dispute itself has been a hinderance to the acheivement of consensus, and simply put, this administrator criticised me while "looking the others way" with regards to the questionable actions of the other users. Dialogue of this can been seen at the Socialism talk page.
 * 2. This user gave me a number of warnings on my user page with regards to what he/she perceived to be a disruption. The issue at hand here is that he/she threatened to block me for the deletion of these warnings by me. This is not a blockable offense, yet this user clearly demonstrates that he/she believes it to be by stating that his/her "patience is wearing thin...". No user, not even administrators can tell other users what they can and can not include in their talk pages. This can be seen in my talk page. Checking the history might be useful.
 * 3. This user has gone against Wikipedia blocking rules and regulations in that he/she has bolcked me for 24 hours: A. On no particular grounds, no specific reason or violation was cited as reason for the block other than that this user had perceived me to be difficult. B. This user and I were clearly engaged in what could be characterised as a "content dispute". It is clearly stated under the blocking guidelines, that it is not acceptable for an admin to block someone which is in a content dispute with them. This dispute referred to the discussion of page layout/settings in the Socialism article, where the dialogue of this dispute can be viewed here. C. This user, while not giving any specific citations/reasons for the block in question, stating that I should review the policies of Civility, No personal attacks, and verifiability. I agree, as I admit I could use a change in going about some edits. But the Wikipedia block guidelines has stated that none of these violations justify a block, and once again, no direct reason was given for the block in the first place. It should also be noted that the block in question took place almost immediately after I stated my intentions to report what I view to be administrator abuse.
 * 4. This user has blanket reverted minor edits of mine on the grounds that "no consensus was given". This is a valid reasons for reversions regarding major structural changes, but does not apply to minor edits characterised by correction of grammer, etc.

In conclusion, it is my sincere belief that the actions of this administrator with regards to my account are not sufficiently justified. It is therefore my humble request that the actions in question be reviewed, evaluated, and that proper sanctions be given is such measures are found to be necessary. Thank you for your time, and have a good evening.  EnglishEfternamn  talkcontribs 04:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing to see here, beyond Lar being extraordinarly patient with a rather...vexatious editor. A short review of the history of EnglishEfternamn's talk page shows Lar patiently and politely advising Efternamn how to handle a dispute at Talk:Socialism (Efternamn was attempting to change the article from American to British English).  Efternamn responded by removing Lar's advice with rude edit summaries, calling it "harassment", "vandalism", and "personal attacks".  See further up this page at  for details and discussion about how Efternamn earned his most recent block.
 * The only 'proper sanction' that I can foresee is an additional block of Efternamn (he's had three in the last six weeks already) if he doesn't start behaving in line with Wikipedia norms. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * These are clearly ridiculous and severely misrepresented allegations of the way Lar handled this issue. EnglishEfternamn's conduct has already been reported up the page a bit here and at the WP:BLP/N.--RWR8189 05:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See also EnglishEfternamn_and_WP:POINT in archive 189. I think maybe we archive things a bit fast here but... :) Anyway, WGee gave a very thorough recounting of the issues, referencing the edits that gave many of us concern, and calling for a community ban. My subsequent 24 hour block was characterised as mild by some. I remain hopeful this editor can reform, (although the wording choices in the above are perhaps somewhat indicative that it hasn't happened yet) and will continue to monitor this situation. As always I welcome review of my actions. See my talk page as well for further info if necessary. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

New way to fight spambots that make pages with nonsense titles
Following general consensus to implement an elegant kludge to protect non-existent pages in this VP discussion, I have created User:Flyingtoaster1337/Spam pages with nonsense titles, which may allow us not to pollute an entire category with nonsense titles. They include horrible ones like Talk:The Scream/ (deleted 10 times) and Template talk:Sri Lankan Conflict/ (3 times).

Now all that's needed to prevent these spam pages from being re-created is for a kind sysop to move my user subpage to Protected titles/Spam pages with nonsense titles and protect the page. All the pages listed are currently redlinks so there's no need for any deletions in order for cascading protection to kick in. Flyingtoaster1337 10:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Done; moved, cascadedly protected, and linked to via Protected titles. I am aware cascadedly is not a word.  Proto ::  ►  10:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :D Flyingtoaster1337 10:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Who says cascadedly is not a word? ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 13:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Cascading protection only works on transcluded pages. You'd have to transclude the pages in question before protection actually kicks. Just linking to them won't work. (Otherwise the featured article would be protected when it appears on the main page). - Mgm|(talk) 13:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The spam pages are listed using which transcludes the non-existent page onto the protected page. Flyingtoaster1337 15:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Now I realise why some of the pages aren't protected. For some reason the template breaks when the page name is preceded with spaces. Flyingtoaster1337 15:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So don't put spaces before your title spammers! HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Something in the template requires the namespace to be specified via the "ns" parameter instead of together with the rest of the page name. I've posted a corrected version of the entries on Wikipedia talk:Protected titles/Spam pages with nonsense titles. And the broken activity log link means that the template has to be fixed again. :/ Flyingtoaster1337 16:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone with a good idea what this is? re User talk:HELLO, WORLD!/Sandbox
Something on the zh wiki. User talk:HELLO, WORLD!/Sandbox. I noticed it since the user keeps requesting to have the Feb 4'th selected anniversaries template unprotected. Syrthiss 13:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Assume good faith. Those pages on zh.wikipedia do not exist yet. What you are seeing when you click on those links is the "This page does not exist" error message on there. There is also nothing on the deletion log there saying that those pages were deleted. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume good faith until someone does something to make me suspicious, like adding requests to RFPP multiple times for templates used on the main page to be unprotected...and ignoring suggestions to use editprotected instead. I realize now looking at their contributions that there may be language issues between this editor and I. Syrthiss 16:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment
I have been continuously sexually harassed by this User:Woot Hoot the owl aka WOOOOOOT and their sockpuppets for the past day and a half. I find it extremely disturbing that they are targeting me. He now knows how to change his IP address and claims he is going to do this every day. Can someone please put an end to this?  Darth griz 98 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Temporary semi-protection of your userpage and talkpage may solve this. Thulium 18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. I also just now left her a note to this effect.  Expiration set for a week (love that new protection-expiry feature).  Antandrus  (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been following this vandalism and try to block the offensive vandal as soon as possible. I will also keep aneye on page protection and if it is needed again, feel free to notify me. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Teapot Dome Vandalism
The 'Teapot Dome Scandal' page has been vandalized - not severely, but bad language has been used. Could this be cleared off?

89.240.65.214 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone already reverted it.--Isotope23 18:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a joke?
There are what, almost 2 thousand administrator's here and no one responds to requests? Does enforcement of Wikipedia policies not exist anymore? --216.153.154.85 18:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would need more information to answer that. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Administrator absence FAQ suggests the following:
 * "This administrator is intentionally left blank."
 * "All our administrators are busy enforcing policies on other articles, rather than chatting on ANI. Please explain your question in more detail, and an administrator will be with you shortly."
 * "All your administrator are belong to us".
 * FT2 (Talk 19:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

BINGO And he's is conducting personal attacks on this very board, no less. --216.153.154.85 19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go out on a limb and say it is related to this...--Isotope23 19:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems you have need of this lovely hat. Derex 05:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)'''
 * Personal attacks on the Administrator's notice board, no less.
 * This anon has removed Derex's comments four times n'counting from Derex' talk page, calling him a 'troll'. If you ask me, the anon's behavior seems far more trollsome, , , . Ho-hum. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're looking for dispute resolution. This situation, from what I can tell, does not require administrative intervention, which is what this noticeboard is for. —bbatsell ¿?  19:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * IP blocked 24h for WP:3RR. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  19:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm against the block or anything, but isn't it a little disingenuous to direct him to WP:PAIN? Since it kinda no longer exists, you know. ^_^ JuJube 19:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeez, how come no one ever tells me these things? :D RadioKirk (u|t|c)  19:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Block IP for one week becuase of legal threat
Due to the following edits. I am going to block this IP for one week. If anyone else has any better ideas, feel free to just do it. :D
 * Note, I have not done anything yet, the threats were made a few weeks ago. ideas? —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 18:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 
 * 

Thanks —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 18:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It may make sense to remove the threatening message, or replace with a polite reminder to make sure that all contributions follow our content policies, but I don't think we need do anything else. Jkelly 18:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a static IP -- BESI (a.k.a. "journeyeast) has its server on it (see the domains tools section labeled "server data")-- this means that IP address is probably one of Comcast's business accounts. This is not a shared IP.


 * See these for additional information:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive175
 * User talk:71.201.181.10
 * As you can see, this was one of the more prolific spammers of the year spamming many domains across a range of Wikipedia articles. Several of his sites are Chinese; I don't have the language skills to know if they've been spammed to the Chinese Wikipedia. It took hour to track this stuff down and clean it up.
 * Thanks for any help you can render. I'm not an admin, so there's not much I can do here other than document and clean up. --A. B. (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User 198.160.250.2
This user vandalised Sasuke Uchiha several times and should be warned (or i possible blocked). The number was 198.160.250.2 Jacce 20:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As it says at the top of this page: "To report persistent vandalism or spamming, see WP:AIV" Thanks, Gwernol 20:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest issues on Obligations in Freemasonry and related AfD
A number of self-identified Freemasons and I believe several who have not disclosed their conflict of interest are both edit-warring on the article and lobbying to change keep votes in the AfD. Identified Freemasons include: MSJapan and ALR. Undisclosed Freemasons probably include Blueboar, WegianWarrior, and possibly several others. Could someone look into this? 204.122.16.13 16:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So far their actions have include: claiming on the talk page that quoted text doesn't match the reference given, when in fact it does. Voting in the AfD without disclosing their conflict of interest. Repeated removal of properly cited material claiming it is t "misquote" when it is not, and using other misleading edit summararies to remove or change information that they would prefer not be presented in Wikipedia. 204.122.16.13 16:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not in any way involved in this AfD, but a quick cursory check of the text attributed to "Duncan's Masonic Ritual and Monitor" in the article against this seems to indicate the text in the article is completely fabricated... I don't see those quotes anywhere in the online text... --Isotope23 17:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not true. Simply click through to the appropriate chapter for the first three degrees and search for "Peter Gabe". 204.122.16.13 17:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, there it is... that's what happens when you do a quick cursory check.--Isotope23 17:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Before anyone gets too trigger happy here, look at the contrib history of and. Frater Xyzzy originally created the entry in question, and is currently blocked for sock puppetry. This single purpose IP editor originates in Seattle, where Frater Xyzzy also lives. Do not enable a user who is evading an indef block to prove a point. - WeniWidiWiki 21:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that he was blocked as a sock of me, even though he is a seperate individual, simply because he edited from behind the same router as I do before he moved. Since I am not in Seattle, and he currently is, that means that he was falsely blocked as a sock, and he is not evading anything. Alternatively, for the sake of argument, if he is me, I am not blocked and therefore he would not be evading a block. I have removed my votes and comments from the AfD, because I have no desire to be blocked again for the actions of another user who has been falsely identified as my sock. Jefferson Anderson 21:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * , the sockpuppeteer, also voted in this AfD. Since this report he is now removing his vote from the AfD, but also other users comments about his sockpuppetry . While Anderson/Xyxxy/204 has the right to strike out his comments, it is unacceptable for him to be deleting the comments of other participants in the AfD.  This is the same sort of thing he was doing in the Jeff Rosenbaum AfD .  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 21:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, I didn't vote. 204.122.16.13 21:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop falsely accusing me a sockpuppetry. There are a lot of assumptions here, and I am trying my best NOT to be confused with someone who is not me. Jefferson Anderson 21:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Vanaldism from user 216.107.210.140
This user has been making several repeated attempts to vanadlize the Aqua Teen Hunger Force page and his history shows a past of repeated vandalism. 

--Skeev 19:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As it says at the top of this page: "To report persistent vandalism or spamming, see WP:AIV" Thanks, Gwernol 20:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like at least 7 of his last 10 edit on Wikipedia were vandalism and he'd been blocked several times before for doing the same. I guess what I'm curious about now is, what consitutes "persistant" vandalism?  Not trying to be sarcastic or anything, just trying to understand the system. --Skeev 21:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is persistent vandalism, but it doesn't go here (here being WP:AN/I), it goes on WP:AIV, which is the noticeboard specifically for vandalism. Thanks, —bbatsell  ¿?  21:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I misread Gwernol's post. Thanks for the correction. --Skeev 22:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Blizzard man
Someone has set up the article for Blizzard Man and are trying to depict it as a real person instead of a character on Saturday Night Live. I tried to change it, but they seem to like the joke so much they reverted it. Remember 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone deleted it before I could smerge it to Andy Samberg. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Blatant acts of vandalisim are taking place on the page for Patrick Macias, a page that should probably be deleted anyways. Gabberone

User Mhstebbi
Mhstebbi (talk • contribs • [ logs ] ) has been adding images to articles on Icelandic politicians. Not once has an image uploaded by him had any source information. He seems to have copied images from the websites of the Parliament and President of Iceland without permission. Some of the images are of deceased people and it might be possible to put some sort of a fair use claim on them, but other images we are certainly not allowed to use, for example Image:Þorsteinn Pálsson .jpg, Image:Þorsteinpalsson.jpg and Image:Myndpálsson.jpg which are all the same image and he has put into the article on.

The reason I am bringing this up here is that he has had repeated warnings about this but ignores them and just reinserts the images. Therefore I think an admin might need to look into this. Thanks, Stefán 22:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

John Grisham
Anyone familiar with the POV fight at this article? An editor pointed me there; I'd like some history before I consider stepping in. RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

personal attack and abuse of personal userpage
User:Abu ali has decided to make usage of his wikipedia page for malice intent, when the issue was mentioned to him, his response was to add my user name to be pointed out together with the rest of the intentional attack on zionism.

after given fair warning and increasing on his offense (such as reintroducing my username after a wikipedia admin - Ryanpostlethwaite removed it ) he was recieved an issue of a final warning.

his response was to reply with false naivity.. that he did not see offense in the "zionism = moshe katzav" issue (he actually enhanced the issue by adding two more categorical misrepresentations), while he ignored his blatantly offensive reaction (i.e. putting me out on display). i honestly feel the best summary for the innapropriate activity of this user lies behind the warning in with these words:

"this finger pointing [at me] is unacceptable, i suggest you let go of your anti-zionist bash tactics or that you merely move them to a website which allows such activity. Jaakobou 11:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)"

in conclusion, i request this user be banned due to his counterproductive and even destructive use of wikipedia. Jaakobou 07:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

-- complaint moved from Administrator intervention against vandalism due to request by Woohookitty Jaakobou 09:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The user linked someone's assumed political convictions to their edits on Wikipedia. I told them not to judge edits based on the editors religious or political beliefs. - Mgm|(talk) 09:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that it would be wise to remind Jaakobou to assume good faith and its incompatability with using phrases like "has decided to make usage of his wikipedia page for malice intent", "anti-zionist bash tactics" and "his response was to reply with false naivity". His compaint above is factually incorrect. He has accused me of vandalism for editing my own user page. He has accused me of making personal attacks from my user page, but declined to provide the text of these attacks (the simple reason being that no personal attacks were made by me). He has mischaracterised my reply to his "warnings" without providing a link to the text reply here and accused me of making two (unspecified) misrepresentations. If you examine his contributions you will find a mixture of personal attacks on other editors and aggrassive POV pushing (e.g. ). Of course Jaakobou is intitled to his opinions. And his conduct on Wikipedia (including his current attempt to ban me) is totally consistent with his ideology. But other users are also intitled to observe his actions and through them to learn about the ideology that he supports. Abu ali 11:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * there's no need for you to remind me of "good faith" after you decided to paste my username on your page for display even after it was removed by admin Ryanpostlethwaite - . your current response here follows with that same false naivity you deny (your added reply see: reply herehas no mention of abusing my username does it?).
 * [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px]] This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.


 * (1) And his conduct on Wikipedia (including his current attempt to ban me) is totally consistent with his ideology. (see boldened text above) - this type of accusation is simply a repetition on your assaults.
 * (2) User Jaakobou proudly supports zionism and does not feel that being labled a zionist is a personal attack. I personally do not share his belief. But I do believe that one can learn much by examining his actions on Wikipedia. - this type of accusation is simply a repetition on your assaults.


 * I repeat on my original request on this user so long as he insists on using wikipedia in a counter-productive manner. Jaakobou 11:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can someone ask this guy to calm down. ThanksAbu ali 11:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that singling out Jaakobou and posting his name in the Zionism links on Abu Ali's user page was inappropriate, and I am glad to see that Abu Ali has removed it from there. But it's not such a big deal, surely? After all, it's not as though Jaakobou considers the term to be defamatory. I don't see any inappropriate content on Abu Ali's talk page; and after all, on his own talk page, Jaakobou refers to " crack head arabs" and suggests that other editors are lying. Isn't this also a personal attack -- and racist, in addition?
 * There is no possible excuse for banning Abu Ali, even the original "offence", which I do not think warranted any sanction, has been remedied by him. I suggest that Jaakobou drops the whole storm in a teacup, and gets on with editing. RolandR 12:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Roland. Personally, I don't like political material on userpages, but many people do this, and I don't know that there's a clear rule, is there?  If there's not a clear rule, I think we need to be very careful about singling people out.  As far as insulting people, I recently had a situation where two other users were dealing with a much more serious political accusation, and along with some admins, we talked it through and got the material removed.  I think Jaakobou had a right to be annoyed, or even offended, but even alleged incivility can be dealt with civilly, and in this case I think that was accomplished with the removal of the material.  I hope that resolves the issue.  Best, Mackan79 14:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What is this? -> (1) help me RolandR, (2) help me Mackan79 <- (1) RolandR, please don't change the subtext of conversations i've had in an aggressive atttempt to present me as racist - consider this a pre-warning. (2) Abu ali has made it clear that he percieves zionism as a derogatory affiliation (see quote (2) above) and to add to a personal opinion (which he's allowed to have) he used wikipedia in a counter-productive manner to say the least. (3) considering this new multiple account activity i think Abu ali should simply use wikipedia in a productive way and entertain his perception on zionism on the regular hate-websites rather than a serious enterprize... i suggest users RolandR and Mackan79 consider doing the same (i.e. use wikipedia in a productive manner). Jaakobou 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And presumably trying to get other users banned is an example of using "wikipedia in a productive manner"? I did hope that a word from other editors would convince you to calm down, but it seems to have had the opposite effect. Anyway this page is not the place if you insist on lashing out at me or other users. I suggest that if you want to persue this, look at the resolving disputes page. Abu ali 17:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) perhaps you should not treat warnings with provocation? (2) you can still change your mind and cease counter productive use of wikipedia... if you do this, i will not pursue further activity. (3) "lashes... or other users " (see above boldened text) is what i consider yet another personal attack which is besided the issue of your own activity which is being reported after more than fair warning. Jaakobou 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

off-topic
There is no such thing as a pre-warning. If you want to complain about me, go ahead -- I'd like to see you explain how your dismissive reference to "a couple of crack head arabs" was anything but racist. And, before you accuse others of being aggressive, I suggest you take a look in the mirror. RolandR 21:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

reply: "Jaakobou 22:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)"
 * you've made a fair point about my use of terminology (albeit there was no racial intention) and i have changed it, apologies to anyone who considered it as a racial slur.
 * i request for you to show that same anti-defamation POV in regards to the misuse made on zionism by your friend Abu ali.

off-topic 2: fair use image issue

 * By the way, Abu, when I was looking at your userpage, I saw that you are using a fair Use image on it. Would you remove that please? Jeffpw 13:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * no problem Abu ali 13:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am very surprised that anyone sees a copyright issue here. Naji al-Ali created Handala as a symbol of the Palestinian people, the image has been very widely copied by other artists and cartoonists, in graffiti, on t-shirts and elsewhere. It is universal in Palestine. Preventing use of the image in Wikipedia is almost equivalent to censoring a conscious Palestinian presence. Surely, if there is any doubt, it is possible to contact his family and establish the status of this image. RolandR 12:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No one stops you from doing just that (be sure to get a release that is acceptable to Wikipedia, not just an informal mail or even worse a telephone call). Until then, it is a fair use image, and we have to follow the image policies. Note that e.g. the famous Che Guevara photo Image:Famousphotoche.jpg is also a fair use photo. Fram 13:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But there is a difference between a cartoon character and a photo. Even if the particular version of the image used by Abu Ali is fair use, there is nothing, as far as I know, to prevent him from himself drawing and using Handala. I don't think that the idea itself is copyright. RolandR 14:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you are not allowed to do that either. Making your own version of copyrighted cartoon characters is still a copyright violation (otherwise you could make your own Dilbert cartoons and no one could stop you!). Fram 15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but is Handala copyright? I don't think so, which is why the image appears so frequently on t-shirts and other commercial items. RolandR 16:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be free of copyright, but unless we know for sure, we have to act as if it is copyrighted. I see Calvin and Hobbes on illegal T-shirts all the time as well, but they are definitely copyrighted. We have to err on the side of caution here. 20:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

More BoxingWear
In this edit, indefblocked user BoxingWear has pledged to "...create new account, go on another ip, etc, etc, today I was told how to, i could simply edit from my new account, new ip, new articles I never touched, IMPOSSIBLE TO CATCH ME. I will not do that, if i am not welcomed on wiki, so be it..." He keeps claiming that he knows the person who he was checkusered against (George Reeves Person), and is probably going to start a fresh new round of sockpuppeteering (or whatever GRP does; I can't tell because Jimbo salted his LTA page). BoxingWear seems to be working on a dynamic IP, and has shown up with a few IPs today already. Also, the "today I was told how to [go on another ip]" hints at using an open proxy. What should we do? PTO 22:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC) He did not say whole story, i will not attack anybody i just want to say what's on my mind. Also I have another account on sports that is in perfect condition, since 2005, not one complaint and you will never find it. Have fun! And if you think i am the above person, whatever, it's impossible talking to people like you. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PullToOpen&diff=105185865&oldid=105112895 Striking per comment of banned user. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * PTO, I'd recommend you discussed this privately. Remember in all likelyhood this discussion is being watched by BoxingWear, and WP:BEANS isn't a good thing. Also, surprise is about the most useful thing we can have. Thanks, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Unwarrented blocking by administrator

 * Good day, I am writing to report what I view to be administrator abuse by the following Wikipedia administrator: User:Lar (talk). The following reasons are as followed:
 * 1.This user began by giving me warnings about the layout of content of the Socialism article. While the user in question came off as well meaning, this user disregarded my own input in the matter while ordering me, with strong language to "take the advice of everyone else". This matter would not be a very big deal in and of itself, but a number of users, most notably WGee engaged in profanity and personal attacks against me, something that was not assessed by the administrator. The dispute itself has been a hinderance to the acheivement of consensus, and simply put, this administrator criticised me while "looking the others way" with regards to the questionable actions of the other users. Dialogue of this can been seen at the Socialism talk page.
 * 2. This user gave me a number of warnings on my user page with regards to what he/she perceived to be a disruption. The issue at hand here is that he/she threatened to block me for the deletion of these warnings by me. This is not a blockable offense, yet this user clearly demonstrates that he/she believes it to be by stating that his/her "patience is wearing thin...". No user, not even administrators can tell other users what they can and can not include in their talk pages. This can be seen in my talk page. Checking the history might be useful.
 * 3. This user has gone against Wikipedia blocking rules and regulations in that he/she has bolcked me for 24 hours: A. On no particular grounds, no specific reason or violation was cited as reason for the block other than that this user had perceived me to be difficult. B. This user and I were clearly engaged in what could be characterised as a "content dispute". It is clearly stated under the blocking guidelines, that it is not acceptable for an admin to block someone which is in a content dispute with them. This dispute referred to the discussion of page layout/settings in the Socialism article, where the dialogue of this dispute can be viewed here. C. This user, while not giving any specific citations/reasons for the block in question, stating that I should review the policies of Civility, No personal attacks, and verifiability. I agree, as I admit I could use a change in going about some edits. But the Wikipedia block guidelines has stated that none of these violations justify a block, and once again, no direct reason was given for the block in the first place. It should also be noted that the block in question took place almost immediately after I stated my intentions to report what I view to be administrator abuse.
 * 4. This user has blanket reverted minor edits of mine on the grounds that "no consensus was given". This is a valid reasons for reversions regarding major structural changes, but does not apply to minor edits characterised by correction of grammer, etc.

In conclusion, it is my sincere belief that the actions of this administrator with regards to my account are not sufficiently justified. It is therefore my humble request that the actions in question be reviewed, evaluated, and that proper sanctions be given is such measures are found to be necessary. Thank you for your time, and have a good evening.  EnglishEfternamn  talk<span style="font-family:Tahoma, helvetica; color:lightblue;">contribs 04:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing to see here, beyond Lar being extraordinarly patient with a rather...vexatious editor. A short review of the history of EnglishEfternamn's talk page shows Lar patiently and politely advising Efternamn how to handle a dispute at Talk:Socialism (Efternamn was attempting to change the article from American to British English).  Efternamn responded by removing Lar's advice with rude edit summaries, calling it "harassment", "vandalism", and "personal attacks".  See further up this page at  for details and discussion about how Efternamn earned his most recent block.
 * The only 'proper sanction' that I can foresee is an additional block of Efternamn (he's had three in the last six weeks already) if he doesn't start behaving in line with Wikipedia norms. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * These are clearly ridiculous and severely misrepresented allegations of the way Lar handled this issue. EnglishEfternamn's conduct has already been reported up the page a bit here and at the WP:BLP/N.--RWR8189 05:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See also EnglishEfternamn_and_WP:POINT in archive 189. I think maybe we archive things a bit fast here but... :) Anyway, WGee gave a very thorough recounting of the issues, referencing the edits that gave many of us concern, and calling for a community ban. My subsequent 24 hour block was characterised as mild by some. I remain hopeful this editor can reform, (although the wording choices in the above are perhaps somewhat indicative that it hasn't happened yet) and will continue to monitor this situation. As always I welcome review of my actions. See my talk page as well for further info if necessary. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I reinstated the incident because it has not been properly reviewed by even on person with proper oversight. It is not been addressed that Lar broke the "content dispute" regulation either. Lar, again, did not cite a SPECIFIC offense for the block as well, which is also against the rules. At this point, there is a bigger issue as to whether or not I broke the rules, an issue of protocol on Lar's part. This is why this incident must be further addressed.-- EnglishEfternamn  talk<span style="font-family:Tahoma, helvetica; color:lightblue;">contribs 02:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Eedo Bee
Has been removing LGBT tag from talk pages of articles relating to our project. His userpage states that she opposes LGBT issues, so it seems that this is WP:POV. A message has been left on his talkpage, but he is continuing the action. Have a look at his contribution history to see. I ask that an admin intervene, as it is time consuming and irritating to have to clean up after him. Jeffpw 12:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am a male. Stop with the female pronouns. Secondly, I have been removing unencyclopaedic content, that is all. I maintain that what I am doing is for the good of wikipedia, and I put such a userpage comment because of the LGBT hype up on wikipedia. I am removing the LGBT Issues banner on pages where there is no hint of an LGBT issue. Eedo Bee 12:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for misidentifying your gender. I saw you referred to as female in another area, so assumed it was correct. I have cleaned up my initial post here. Jeffpw 12:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I definitely think it's POV - the person seems to be Catholic, so is likely religiously opposed to the LGBT project. Somebody should warn this editor. Also, the "no hint of an LGBT issue" is rubbish, and this isn't for the good of Wikipedia. The person can demonstrate their Catholic, anti-LGBT bias in a different manner other than disrupting Wikipedia. LuciferMorgan 12:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take your Anti-Catholic attitudes elsewhere. The idea that Catholics set out to destroy wikipedia is offensive. Eedo Bee 12:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Eedo has removed the LGBT banner from (among others) Casey Donovan (porn star), one of the first gay porn stars; Billy Tipton, a woman who lived with another woman in a sexual relationship; and Sebastian, history's first recorded gay icon. These articles definitely fall under the scope of the LGBT project, and the deletion of our project tag is vandalism, in my eyes. Jeffpw 12:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You're incorrect Eedo Bee - I'm blaming you for trying to disrupt Wikipedia, not anyone else, but yourself. It's you who is being a vandal, not Catholics. Other Catholics, while holding their contrasting opinions, choose to respect other people's differing opinions and still edit in a fair, balanced and objective manner. I welcome such Catholic editors, and hope they continue to participate in Wikipedia. Your bias paints Catholics in a negative light, which is wrong of you - perhaps you can take your anti-LGBT agenda elsewhere - this is an encyclopaedia and is meant to respect both sides of the coin. LuciferMorgan 12:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Notice that Eedo's final userbox says "This user is against LGBT issues and Queer Theory," which is a strong indicator that he is acting for POV reasons.-FisherQueen (Talk) 12:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now reverted seven of his edits, and notice he is returning to the pages and taking the tags off (at least one so far0 again. This is getting tiresome, and I politely but firmly request administrative intervention. I should also add that Eedo seems like a new editor. His contribution history only goes back to Jan. 2. Perhaps he is not aware that Wikipedia is run by consensus. I invite you, Edo, to review the policies here before you continue editing like this. Jeffpw 12:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to know what Eedo Bee means by "you people" when speaking at [] this talk page. Care to explain Eedo Bee? LuciferMorgan 12:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And could Eedo also explain his libelous personal attack on Lucifer's talk page? Jeffpw 12:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think he misinterpeted my opinions - I was trying to explain that his Catholic views may be a reason why he dislikes LGBT issues etc. This isn't to say all Catholics dislike LGBT issues or anything of that nature may I add. I'd like to also say that the issue is Eedo Bee, and not Catholic editors - Catholic editors have and will continue to play a valid, important role in Wikipedia, and I respect their differing opinions. LuciferMorgan 13:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have asked Eedo Bee to stop unilaterally removing the LGBT Studies tag from article talk pages, since this appears to me to be potentially disruptive and point of view-driven. The example of Aversion therapy is clearly within the legitimate scope of the project. I would also ask all participants to step back and remain civil. There is no need to further escalate this dispute, and name calling is certainly not warranted by anyone involved. Thanks, Gwernol 13:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You people keep editing, so it is difficult to reply. I have already tried 3 times now. I will jus sum up. It does not say I am Catholic anywhere. You people just assumed. You people is the same people that was meant when it was stated "We" Billy Tipton did not have a sexual relation ship with a woman. This is a lie. Those libel attacks are a response to attacks against myself and my beliefs. I will continue to revent non LGBT articles to LGBT banner free articles. Eedo Bee 13:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you continue, you will be blocked. Please read Wiki policies before you continue on this path. You've already gotten a vandalism warning on your page for this, and an admin has asked you to stop. Jeffpw 13:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * First: Jeffpw please note that Eedo Bee's edits are clearly 'not vandalism. Labeling them as such is exactly the sort of escalation of this legitimate content dispute that I asked all participants to avoid. Second: Eedo Bee, please do not continue to remove these tags without first reaching a consensus on the article's talk pages. I have warned you that taking unilateral action of this kind is disruptive. It is not the way that Wikipedia works and if you persist you can be blocked from editing at all. Finally to everyone involved I again appeal for calmness here. Eedo Bee is correct that the issue of whether he is Catholic is not germane to this at all. Please concentrate on the user's editing actions, not their background. Everyone should read our policy on personal attacks. Thanks Gwernol 13:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've not said a word about Eedo's religion. That is not an issue to me. I do, however, see his actions as vandalism, and highly disruptive to both the LGBT Project and Wikipedia. And I note he is continuing his ill-advised campaign despite several people warning him against it. Jeffpw 13:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't an issue to me either, and I clarified my stance in an earlier comment left here. Perhaps Eedo Bee can also not concentrate on "background" when commenting on people's talk pages. I'm sorry, but this is vandalism which as far as I am concerned - I disagree with the above which Gwernol said, and suggest Gwernol please note I was accused of being anti-Catholic, and the LGBT Project was referred to as "you people" on someone's talk page. I have made no "personal attacks", but I call a spade a spade. Vandalism is vandalism - I don't call it an alleged "content dispute", I call it what it actually is. This is my opinion and I have nothing further to say on the subject. LuciferMorgan 13:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I note that this user is relatively new and may not have fully understood what project tagging means. He may have assumed it gives project members special rights to edit articles. I have left a note explaining that this is not the case, per WP:OWN and an explantion of why projects tag pages. Hopefully this may calm things somewhat. WJBscribe 15:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to this discussion, but it seems that something needs to be done. The user has removed every warning, and every attempt to rationally reason with him from his user page. The user is pushing an acknowledged POV. The user has now taken to tagging articles rather than removing them. How do we convince this user to find another area of Wikipedia in which he may contribute positively? Mark Chovain 02:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * He has already been blocked for 1 week. Any return to this kind of WP:POV-pushing and baiting when his block lifts will be met with an indefinite block. Gwernol 02:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh - you're too quick for me :). Mark Chovain 02:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

New accounts for Iraqi dinar vandal
He's now editing from The other worldz, The purity worldz, and No problem 1284. He has discovered that if he creates the account and lets it "age" for a few days, he can again vandalize Rafida and Nasibi, despite the semi-protection. He's also started reverting my edits -- though only one other article, so far.

I must say, he's certainly challenging the "anyone can edit" policy. Zora 18:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You probably meant, , and . I'll have a look now. 〈 RED VEЯS 〉 19:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing really to see here unless I'm missing something fundamental. One has no contributions; one has one vandalism incident and one reversion of someone else's vandalism; one has one good edit and one POV push, soon reverted. By all means monitor them, but so far there's nothing that WP:AGF won't cover. Thanks for letting us know, though! 〈 RED VEЯS 〉 19:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My, that is alot of WP:SOCKS. I'd suggest a checkuser, but I think WP:DUCK would be reason enough to indef block a whole bunch of the "z" accounts.--Isotope23 19:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest opening a sock investigation on, , , , ...--Isotope23 19:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Redvers, when AnonMoos or I bring up the Iraqi dinar vandal here, there's usually someone who doesn't understand the problem. This has been going on for ... what, a year? ... has happened a dozen times, it involves the use of rotating anonIPs or the creation of multiple new acounts, and it's always an attack against the same two articles and the same two editors. Sure it doesn't look like much if you look at just one account. Look at a few hundred to get the full picture. The guy is mentally ill, is my guess, and is determined to PUNISH the people who thwarted him. Zora 01:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Michelle Rodriguez
Various anon IPs (presumably the same person) have been adding this page to Category:Bisexual American actors. Whether this should happen has been the subject of an RfC with consensus saying it shouldn't be included, due to the actress not self-identifying as bisexual (see talk for full discussion). However, the IPs refuse to discuss the matter and keep adding it back. What should we do? Semi-protection might work, but the IPs come back sporadically to insert the information. Is this just a case of watchlist and revert? Thanks. Trebor 23:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. The anon started talking. Trebor 00:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that the "started talking" consists solely of cutting and pasting material from earlier in the talk page, before the RfC was initiated, which means the anon editor is completely ignoring the discussion and subsequent consensus. PubliusFL 00:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

makes vandalism threats
Please block this person. He vandalized Seabirds, then when someone reverted and added a welcome note to his talk page, he responded with this. Obviously no good will come of this person, and in fact the Seabirds article has been vandalized all evening. TheQuandry 02:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. His first edit shows he's no newbie vandal.  Antandrus  (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)