Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive212

Banned User:Mike Church returns as User:PWnsivander the Great
I've blocked User:PWnsivander the Great as an obvious reincarnation of User:Mike Church, who was banned for long-term sneaky vandalism. Most obviously, he blanked a page meant to keep track of his sockpuppets. Other clues include his use of the word "pwn" and his obsession with "prestige".  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  20:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

cancer.org IP unblocked
12.168.24.203 is owned by the American Cancer Society. It was also the home of a particularly nasty troll from late 2005 through 2006. I've unblocked it at the direct request of the ACS - if anything nasty comes from this IP, please do let cancer.org know - it's supposed to be a work IP. I've asked them for a sysadmin contact to add to the User:12.168.24.203 page - David Gerard 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia page has become unusable
Please help.

I am new to Wikipedia/WikiMedia. In the process of trying to make copy a Wikipedia HelpPage for my own Wiki I realized had I accidentally made the edits to Wikipedia itself. The edits involve two redirects, all focused around the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia

however, when i tried to revert/undo my accidental changes by doing another revert, it seems that all the history has gone. I think becuase of some cyclic redirects.

Could someone please fix these changes before too many people get upset! Sorry! Mr-morfik 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Yeah, double-check the hostname first :)  —bbatsell  ¿?  ✍  22:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Shomari15
This user has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images to WP, either leaving them unsourced or tagging them with obviously invalid fair use claims. Despite the numerous messages left on his talk page, he continues to do so. He has already received his final warning for page vandalism too. Thought I should probably bring this here for admin attention, rather than at WP:AIV, as it's not really a case of "simple vandalism". Thanks a lot. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked this user indefinitely for disruption, per my comments in the last thread about this person. He continues to upload photos with no copyright status or incorrect copyright status, and vandalize, and has been warned numerous times about this despite somehow never being blocked. More trouble than he's worth. Review welcome. Grand  master  ka  23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse block, though I would leave a comment on the talk page inviting him to promise not to continue the image misbehavior. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 07:39Z 

Accusations in talk page
Againts WP:LIBEL User with account banned for numerous issues is now indicating that he shared his pass word with me and indirectly accuses me of using his previous account. He has a new account called. The accusations are in the talk page User_talk:Netmonger. I want to find out what is the recourse for user like me who has never ever have done what he accuses me of. All what did was to advise him on his talk page as a newbie. Please helpRaveenS 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm accused of abusing my admin powers
This is really a content dispute, but has accused me of abusing my admin powers here, here, here, here and here. I do not believe that I have used any admin powers at all in editing Burt Reynolds, Talk:Burt Reynolds or User talk:Dalbury, let alone abuse them, but I always welcome a third opinion. -- Donald Albury 14:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The complaint that you're abusing admin rights seems to come from the misunderstanding that being an admin means you get to dictate the result of content disputes. However, the main thrust of the complaint is not that you abused your admin tools, but you abused the editor tools, and thus shouldn't be an admin anymore. -Amarkov moo! 14:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And that complaint seems to be unfounded; you've only edited the article twice, and most of the unsourced information was not added by you. -Amarkov moo! 14:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This appears to just be bluster. I certainly saw no malicious edits or abuse of admin powers in your logs. --Ginkgo100talk 14:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto...nothing to see here at all...kudos for Dalbury bringing it here to have others examine these accusations...which are obviously unfounded.--MONGO 14:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Tell him to file a user conduct rfc if he really believes what he's saying (after all, abuse of admin power is a serious allegation). You'll obviously be vindicated if he goes through with it and it should be a nice ego boost, or at least confirmation of your good work here. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of late, this appears to be the first thing that people shout - "ADMIN ABUSE!!!!" - whenever they don't understand what has happened, don't like a consensus, don't like a contribution, don't like a contributor, etc. If just 1% of these types of accusations were real, we'd be in trouble. But not even 1% are (more like 0.0001%) and the noise-to-signal ratio means we'd have trouble spotting an admin gone really rouge even if it did happen. I've lost count of how many times I've been accused of it - several before I got the mop and one about 15 minutes after I got it ... downhill from there. Worth your while to ignore this one, Donald, really. 〈 RED VEЯS 〉 14:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was accused of something like this just yesterday. --Ginkgo100talk 14:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said above, this is a content dispute, and I have invited Rogue Gremlin to seek a third opinion or informal mediation, but his claims of abuse of power on my part does not establish a good basis for seeking a solution. -- Donald Albury 14:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As a rule of thumb, editors who cry "admin abuse" and "censorship" are often the problem editors, not the admin in question. --210physicq  (c ) 01:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:JJonathan and socks at Talk:Kylie Minogue
Socks:

One user, using three anonymous and two named accounts. Repeated and persistent deletion of talk page discussion on Talk:Kylie Minogue over the past two months. A partial list of diffs:

Has been blocked twice for 24 hours already and once for a week, but keeps on deleting using either one of the non-blocked accounts, in true whack-a-mole style. Has been asked to participate in the discussion instead of deleting it (examples: ), and has been warned on all five accounts already, but keeps deleting user talk page warnings (examples: ). --Plek 21:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * User:JJonathan just blanked this section. Restored and warned user. --Kurt Shaped Box 01:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerned about an image's copyright status
I noticed that an editor (User:Randomfrenchie) uploaded an image (Image:School 804.gif), claiming that the image is in the public domain. However, I am quite sure that this picture is not in the public domain, and I am also quite sure that the uploader did not get permission to use the picture as the summary suggests. (No, I can't prove it.) I have talked to this person in real life, and my conversation with him showed that he probably would have lied about an image's copyright status. What action should be taken about this image? PTO 23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you can talk to him about it (in real life or on-wiki), and if that doesn't work, you can take the image to Possibly unfree images or just slap a no license tag on it. If you have problems beyond that, you can come back here or talk to me. --Mr. Lefty  (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User:67.168.172.14
Heavily spamming Safeway Inc. Stevage 00:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Used but I think this can go straight to WP:AIV.  Blocks/bans get done faster there.   x42bn6  Talk 00:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, will report there next time. Stevage 00:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't be sorry. If in doubt, this place is always good.   x42bn6  Talk 00:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Mass Spamming By ANNAfoxlover.
A user, ANNAfoxlover, has been mass-spamming users to get them to sign the user's own autograph page. Despite several warnings from other users 1 2, including administrators, the user continues to spam others (see the contributions 3). On the opposite side of the board, about a hundred other users have actually signed this users autograph page.

The user also tried to force HighInBC to sign their autograph page 4, after he had said many times to the user that he was not going to sign it. The user appeared to stop when I intervened by saying that trying to force HighInBC could be seen as harassment.

I do not believe this user has bad intentions, but the mass spamming is a serious issue, and failure to acknowledge the warnings makes this situation even worse. Acalamari 00:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This matter is also being discussed at Administrators' noticeboard. Probably best to try and keep the discussion in one place... WjBscribe 00:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll post this there then. Acalamari 00:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion - Removal of a userbox
I recently removed a userbox here from user:Embargo. It appears as though the version i removed was vandalized (I am not too sure). Now, Embargo is claiming that I have vandalized his page, and several other things. I just wanted to make sure that my actions were appropriate to remove the version of the userbox listed above. If it was innapropriate in the eyes of other admin, I will have no issue apolagizing to him however, I feel anything that states, that they support the massacre of another people is innapropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I actualy made a mistake above is the diff where I removed the userbox, the one above shows the userbox before I removed it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (EC) Er... yes, that certainly seems like an inapppropriate userbox. I think you did the right thing.  I'd say you might have requested its removal, first, but judging by his talk page, that's been tried unsuccessfully... several times. Shimeru 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There was previously a fairly long discussion  about User:Embargo's userbox...  I have no idea what the final consensus was, but I believe most had accepted his most recent version. --Onorem 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, he changed it back after I removed the bad version. The version I removed stated, "This user supports Hezbolla to israelli massacres." -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (EC) The version that reads "This user supports resistance to Israeli hostilities." ? Really?  Strange. Shimeru 20:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Was just trying to provide some background for any interested. And you had asked on his userpage for a discussion that said his userbox could stay. The "bad version" had been altered in this edit earlier today.  I'm assuming that Embargo didn't notice the changes when he reverted the rest of the vandalism. --Onorem 20:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That is what I was looking for. I have no issue with the current revision.  Thanks for the background, much appreciated. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I do, though. If the content is unacceptable in the open, then it's unacceptable when it's "hidden" behind pipes, too.  I'd think this would be pretty obvious; I mean, nobody would support a userbox that read something like "This user thinks are really nice people" .  Would they? Shimeru 21:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

While you are at it and on this subject, User:TheKaplan has restored "Hezbollah = Murder Incorporated" after removal as per Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive73
 * I have aksed him to remove it. It appears as though his intentions of having it there are to Make a point per this quote ("And I probably would have cleaned this one out with all the other superfluous ones, but since someone tried to remove it") located right above it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm disturbed by Embargo's edit summary, reverting Chrislk02's removal of hostile material here : "Garbage..."??? that can't be civil at all. ThuranX 23:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you ok guys w/ the current version? Shall we move on or do you still have some things to say? --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  10:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, as above. If there's a consensus that says supporting Hezbollah against Israeli "massacres" is okay (and that is what the current version says, although covertly), then fine -- but in that case, I fail to see why the "Hezbollah = Murder" userbox is any worse.  Personally, I don't care for either side in the conflict, but I don't think we should allow one of these messages and not the other -- that would appear to be taking sides.  If stating a political view in terms of "X is murdering people" is okay, both boxes are okay.  If not, both are not. Shimeru 10:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, i've never supported any of the versions myself (see current and archived Embargo's user page). However, and after lenghty discussions at their talk page and at a previous ANI thread, there seemed that the issue has been resolved. Otherwise, i'll be supporting the immediate removal of all these userboxes which smell politics. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  10:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Laudable of you, but I think that misses the point. Politics isn't the problem; it's a smokescreen.  The problem (if one exists) is couching political statements in terms of "murder" and "massacres".  I think there's room for userboxes that state political views without demonizing any given political entity in that way.  That said, if it's been settled, I'm not inclined to push.  Neither of them offends me, particularly.  Just wanted to point out that defending one of those boxes while attacking the other is a pot/kettle situation; they're more or less equivalent, for better or for worse. Shimeru 07:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:geg
user:Geg

Both him/her and user:Apostrophe have been a pain in the butt for me lately. Could there please be a small block? Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1.Possible sockpuppet. (not sure.)
 * 2.Small wikistalking
 * 3.Harassment.
 * 4.Removing my comments on talk pages for no reason.
 * 5.Removing a section in Kingdom hearts II for no apparent reason.
 * Diffs or it didn't happen. JuJube 03:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Look at this diff for a lovely comment he made to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_Hearts_II&diff=113227430&oldid=113227046 Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That does run afoul of WP:CIVIL. However, there's no context of this so-called "sockpuppetry" and "harassment", and that section is pretty needless.  JuJube 03:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

On Sockpuppetry- Geg seems to act similar to Apostrophe, both harass me, both edit the same pages pretty much. Harassment- Both keep rverting edits of mine for no apparent reason, and will remove my comments on their talk pages, claiming i am vandalising it. (see their talk pages.)Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: The section has a fair amount of trivia, and they dont even explain to me why. They just harass me while reerting the edits most of the time. Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC),
 * Geg and I both edit Zatch Bell articles. I guess he's my sockpuppet, too. And by the way, there's nothing wrong with removing comments from talk pages. JuJube 03:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dunno if we're allowed to post here but... Apostrophe and I are not sockpuppets; we just have the same editing tendencies. This whole thing stends from something that InvaderSora starting trying to add to the article Kingdom Hearts II] a while ago that Apostrophe and I and a few other users such as [[User:Urutapu, User:Axem Titanium, and User:Ryulong would revert due to it being irrelevent. InvaderSora has actually been blocked for it a few times due to 3RR and WP:CIVIL, though for some reason his block log is empty now. And the above comment is just due to my frustration and disbelief that someone would want to add something something like this to the article despite the overwhelming consensus that it should not be added. The Splendiferous Gegiford 03:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also.. "And by the way, there's nothing wrong with removing comments from talk pages." Well, yeah there is, but not when it's obviously just him being smart by trying to act like one of the "Welcome to Wikipedia" guys. Also, I apologize to the admins for how immature this whole thing looks. The Splendiferous Gegiford 03:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Because i changed my name. And i stopped putting it under Trivia with other notable trivia things. Just because you and your little group dont like it doesnt mean it is irrelivent. Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, this sounds like a content dispute. InvaderSora, have you tried using the article talk page?  This isn't a matter for the admin noticeboard, no matter how much you think they should be blocked. JuJube 03:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * About the trivia, most Wikipedia guidelines like WP:TRIV discourage the use of trivia sections in articles, especially for something this unnotable. But yes, this is definitely a content dispute, and as far as I can tell he hasn't tried using the article's talk page. The Splendiferous Gegiford 03:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For one, you're not an admin, so i'm sorry, but i'll have to ask you to stay out of it. Two, regardless of editing, he has been harassing me, and that's worth a block. Also, Apostrophe seems to often wikistalk me. Proof? He's reverted my edits at pages hes never edited before. The Trivia has more notable stuff to back it up. And i dont use the talk page, because nobody is going to care. Why should i be discussing it ont he talk page if you already remove my comments from talk pages for no reason? Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, diffs or it didn't happen. User talk pages are different from article talk pages. JuJube 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Err... what? -- ReyBrujo 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet the behavior will likely be the same. See Apostrophe and Geg's talk pages for the diffs. Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I wasn't harrassing you until that one time when you kept provoking me. Simply reverting your bad edits isn't "harrassment". And yeah, I did check your contributions to see what other articles you may have edited with that stuff, but "Wikistalking" is defined as "following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." I never had the intention of causing annoyance or distress to you, despite the amount you're causing me.


 * And like I said, I removed your comments from my talk page because of your sarcastic attitude about it. If you had left a normal message I would have complied. The Splendiferous Gegiford 03:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC

I was NOT being sarcastic. If you think the edits are bad, then IMPROVE THEM! Apostrophe is wikistalking me, though. Can i have some fishy crackers? 04:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If people speak harshly towards you when you engage in disruptive hehaviour, don't do that, then! Uncivil comments have been made towards you by Geg and Apostrophe. This is true and is to be discouraged, but understand that this behavior was provoked through quantitatively worse behaviour on your part. As stated to you previously, administrator intervention is not meant as a punishment, but as an attempt to control or correct undesired behaviour. Administrative action is not required to prevent future incivility towards you from Geg and Apostrophe; the quickest method is simply to correct your own behaviour. –Gunslinger47 04:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WORSE BEHAVIOR? SHOW ME PLEASE...Can i have some fishy crackers? 04:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me get a link... oh yeah HERE'' :P JuJube 05:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit warring alone against concensus over fruit box packaging.
 * (no summary)
 * It is true, at least the fruit snack one.
 * (no summary)
 * (no summary)
 * You know what? leave me alone. I have plenty of proof that this is happening. Get off my back.
 * -sigh- You obviosuly aren't seeing the image.
 * (APOLOGIES FOR 3RR.. THIS GUY KEEPS MESSING IT UP) Source=Image. yes, it is notable. I will report you to an admin if you continue.
 * how so?
 * (no summary)
 * THERE. happy? let's at least mention it. (possible typos)
 * rv
 * and..?
 * RV. Want to get BLOCKED for HARASSMENT again? LEAVE ME ALONE NOW.
 * rv pointless removal.
 * rv- NOT pointless..
 * Note that multiple people were against you, all explaining that they believed your trivia to be unnotable. –Gunslinger47 06:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So if a whole bunch of people go to say, the Invader Zim article, and say "It's unnotable thats its canceled!1", they get their way? Yruly, especially with more stuff to back it up, it is not pointless. I would like Geg and Apostrophe blocked please... Can i have some fishy crackers? 15:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll like to point out that this isn't the first time InvaderSora has done this. This is the third time, actually. Admins, please do something about this. A warning. Anything. I'm getting quite tired of Invader's antics and I'll like us all to get back to our lives. ' 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would stop reporting if you'd stop HARSSING ME.. I haven't done anything lately against the rules. I am getting tired of being harassed and will not stop untill you guys get blocked or you gutys stop. Ok? Can i have some fishy crackers? 01:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "I […] will not stop untill you guys get blocked or you gutys stop."
 * Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. In a nutshell: If you think you have a valid point, causing disruption is probably the least effective way of presenting that point – and it may get you blocked. –Gunslinger47 04:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Original research and linkspam on Talk:Mike Huckabee.
I've been trying to reason with an editor insistent on adding his own WP:OR family tree of Mike Huckabee ot the page. The link he provides here: Talk:Mike_Huckabee leading to this:, is admitted as speculation needing confirmation. (see note at the bottom.) Further, a check of that page's edit history shows it's all his own research and his own conclusions, and not cited from anywhere. I tried the 'random page' link on that wiki, and got NINE different pages he'd written. In fact, the entire site seems to be his professional genealogy site, replete with a user page advertising his fee rates. I've offered to him the option to find citations for HOW Huckabee's family history has influenced his professional career, policies, positions on issues, etc., but his is getting hostile. I cannot find a way to make him grasp that using a wiki as a source for a wiki is bad, that his wiki is OR, and probably spamming, and so on. Help Please? ThuranX 22:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The above editor is very confused about what is and is not allowed on talk pages. The issue of a Wikipedian doing source-based research has come up on WP:NOR many times.  The answer has always been that Wikipedians are free to do research and post a link to the Talk page, if another Editor wants to add that link to the article they may.  The prohibition involves Wikipedians adding their *own* OR to an article page.  It does not involve Talk pages whatsoever. Wjhonson 22:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Another note, the complaining editor is consistently mischaracterizing the page linked. Please review the page yourself to see that it's fully documented, cited, sourced.  His hyperbolic argument should be taken with a fairly large grain of salt.  I have never, not once, tried to add this link *to* the article page.  I posted a request on the Talk page, to see if someone would add the link.  That is the approved, accepted, behaviour as you can find in the WP:NOR archives.  The issue has come up many times. Wjhonson 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * the "wiki" you link to seems to operate as your own private website - all of the edits are by you, everything is by you. The material seems to represent a novel synthesis and as noted, you even say that it's "speculation" at one stage in the process - so no, it should not be added. --Fredrick day 22:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * While that may be true, this issue should not be here. I suggested that the complaining editor take his issue to WP:ATT and instead he takes it here ;) If the issue is that the site is not "reliable" then don't cite it.  It's simple. Wjhonson 22:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dispute resolution is down the hall that way. If the material hasn't been posted to the article itself, but has just been placed on the talk page for comment, I fail to see why this would need any admin intervention. File for a third opinion or article RFC and get some more input. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 23:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, I'll take it there. ANd thanks to Frederick Day. ThuranX 00:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Finally, I would like to point out that I posted here BEFORE WJhonson suggested WP:ATT, and his mischaracterization, along with the 'pithy' winkface, are frankly irritating and smarmy behaviors. ThuranX 00:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:30 didn't work. anyone want to look in now? NOW it's getting combative, and I'm tired of explaining things over and over to him. ThuranX 06:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are making it combative. You agree with anyone who agrees with you and argue against anyone who doesn't.  This board is not the place to have this discussion.  As has been pointed out to you, what I posted on the Talk page does not violate any policy.  You should take your concerns to WP:ATT which is where they belong instead of bothering Admins with things that do not require Admin intervention. Wjhonson 07:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Verdict promising to increase sockpuppeteering
I just got an email from where he promised to start recruiting his friends to continue abusively editing Wikipedia articles. This user already has over 50 confirmed sockpuppets, averaging two to six new ones each day. Note that he knows the images he is uploading violate WP:FU and he knows he is not permitted to set up accounts to edit the Wikipedia. It's not just me who is reverting his edits or blocking him, but I'm doing most of the admin work. Any suggestions on what else to do? I suppose it may be worth locking down all the articles he is editing. He's already learnt how to bypass semi-protection, though. --Yamla 01:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Has this been checkusered? Newyorkbrad 01:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Does he use any particular pattern with his sock names? Anything in particular to look out for? IrishGuy talk 01:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Verdict. There are too many sockpuppets being created to really bother updating the checkuser page, I think.  Probably the checkuser folks would kill me if I added all 50+ accounts.  That said, it might be worth doing as he has switched to using open proxies now.  As to the names, anything with 88 to 91 at the end, or often 180 or 360.  A complete list of the ones we've found is available off of Verdict's user page, User:Verdict.  --Yamla 01:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning, he now appears to be threatening me with physical harm. If the picture he keeps on uploading of himself is accurate, he's a big guy. Still, he doesn't live anywhere near me. --Yamla 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This user recently violated my privacy. The edit in question was removed by someone with oversight.  Given his previous threats, I'm starting to feel a bit uneasy.  --Yamla 03:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please change the puppet tags and categories on User talk:Coolioj and User talk:Mandalore11 from socks of Martin181 to socks of Verdict and change the CAT to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Verdict (and then delete the then empty CAT Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Martin181)? Verdict was created 14:25, 27 September 2006 and Martin181 was created 18:21, 4 January 2007, so Verdict would really be the puppeteer. Thanks.  W ODU P  03:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Indef block of User:DoDoBirds and User:Rajsingam
I had blocked for 31 hours yesterday following the incident reported here by User:Netmonger (see the report). Today, using his sockpuppet account, he attacked me personally before attacking Jimbo Wales on our talk pages. I immediately blocked DoDo and extended Rajsingam block to indef. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  19:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Updates 1
I've been contacted lately by User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam claiming he is the owner of both above-mentioned accounts and that he was betrayed by 2 of his friends with whom he shared the password of his accounts. After further explanations i decided to unblock the main account User:Rajsingam after being assured that it won't happen again. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  11:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

His accusations
He has accused me of using his blocked account which is totally untrue. All my IP's are known and any check user will determine whether I really did misuse his account or not. I am sure his accusations are against WP:LIBEL. Please let me know what is a the process to clear my name from such silly accusations. Thanks RaveenS 13:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you provide us w/ a link to the accusations you are refering to? --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  15:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hkelkar and his socks
has been banned by the arbitration committee for a period of 1 year. But he has been disrupting wikipedia ever since. He came back as and later as. I was able to identify both these socks and block them. Lately Hkelkar has taken to editing anonymously. See Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Hkelkar. I have got most of the pages he used to edit on my watchlist. All his edits are of the same type - reverting articles to his own POV. But I cannot continue watching literally hundreds of articles and block IPs everyday. Is it possible under wikipedia rules and legal under US laws to contact his ISP and/or University and inform them of his disruption? - Aksi_great (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Several of the IPs are from the University of Texas. Their network admins can be contacted regarding the abuse. --Ragib 13:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I might add, Hkelkar had his computer privileges revoked for 2 weeks at the University of Texas. He got an entire class blocked. I only know about it because I tried to edit some articles, and there was some block message with an "X" sign.

Some people at the University of Texas know his real name, but I can't give it out (for obvious reasons).

I know this seems a bit odd, a new user editing this page, but I did try and edit as an anon, but couldn't.

Any problems, just contact the University of Texas's technical department at [mailto:abuse@utexas.edu abuse@utexas.edu] and they will try to resolve it. Just be aware, there's no official policy on students editing Wikipedia.

As regards ISP complaints, well, don't go there. Legal minefield, so I'm told by a friend who does computer studies.

Well, there you go. Explanation given. --Trudiruddsen 13:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the info. I will contact the abuse department soon to inform them of his disruption of wikipedia. I am sure I know his name too, but have not revealed it yet on wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee too is aware of his real name. You must have been blocked from editing as many IPs used by Hkelkar have been blocked due to his ban evasion. Also, I do think it odd for you to have edited this page as your first edit. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Btw, what of the socks of, , , and . If you smell Hkelkar, one of these users is not far away. Baka man  01:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are suspicious, you are free to start your own thread on this page, or make a request at RFCU, or list your request at the ArbCom enforcement page. IMO Hkelkar has caused more trouble than BhaiSaab and Terry after the ArbCom case by not accepting the decision of the ArbCom and by not getting the message that his style of editing and POV pushing is not wanted here. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a note that I have contacted the abuse department at the university. I have received a reply asking for more evidence, diffs, timestamps and other info. I have given them the information. At present, I am hopeful that they will do something about this. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup help requested
On March 4th and 5th, User:Gwern appears to have created hundreds of non-functional redirects. I found them because they today flooded the Short pages list (Parsed version). The short pages software did not recognize them as proper redirects, so they all dropped onto the list. Several issues that I see:
 * 1) Do we even want to keep several hundred different capitalizations of "A Long Time Ago, In A Galaxy Far, far Away..." redirects.  A couple of others were done as well.
 * 2) They are non-functional.  Some just need a space before the first "[", others need whatever is there (before the first "[")converted to a true space.  If they are to be kept, it is a non-trivial fix-it job to clean them up and make them functional.
 * 3) Does Gwern have permission to run a bot like this?  And in his own main user account?

Anyway, I'm putting this here because if the answer to #1 is no, we need more admins than me deleting these things. After fixing a couple of dozen of the non-functional ones myself, and realizing that there are hundreds more to fix, I decided I needed help of some sort.

And I'm *not* looking for a block of User:Gwern at this point. His "bot" has not been running for a couple of days. He may need a warning, especially if the bot is unauthorized, though there is already discussion on his talk from people generally concerned over the flood. But there is at the moment no immenent reason to block him. - TexasAndroid 15:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but if there is only one article named "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away" and there aren't 50 different variations with different capitalization, the go/search box will work, no matter what you type, right? For example, we have Virginia Tech Hokies.  If I type "VIRGINIA TECH HOKIES", "vIrGinIA tECH HoKIES", or any other capitalization into the box, all of those send me to Virginia Tech Hokies.  So having redirects from all of these alternate capitalizations is useless. --BigDT 15:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * His concern seems to be that linking isn't as smart as the go box, but, well... users should check when adding links. Maybe something on submit that will check any new redlinks for "go box results" for that text and suggest them would be useful. --Random832 16:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, redirects from every conceivable alternate capitalization is a maintenance nightmare. The risk of someone accidentally leaving a redlink to an incorrect capitalization is less than the risk of these alternate capitalizations being vandalized becaus nobody is paying attention to them. Unless it's a prominent alternate capitalization (2006-07 NCAA Division I Men's basketball season vs the correct 2006-07 NCAA Division I men's basketball season), I don't think there's a reason to have them there. And even if it is prominent ... there's no real need for it - anyone adding the link will see it is a redlink and fix it. If they don't, someone else will. --BigDT 16:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed these due to a large number of them appearing at the top of Special:Uncategorizedpages. As he seems to have stopped, I don't think any immediate admin action is required, but in short yes, these are/were: (See WP:BOT on those last two.) If there's general agreement to delete these, I'll be happy to help out;  if that's not entirely clear at this point, one might raise it at WP:RFD. Alai 17:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * broken, due to a missing space,
 * unnecessary, for the reasons discussed above,
 * liable to create ridiculous bloat if done for any significant proportion of all articles (increasing the number of pages in the main space by a significant multiple -- probably something on the order of 10 million redirects, depending on the distribution of length in words of article names),
 * made with an unapproved bot (see WP:BRFA, not to say the lack of an explicit consensus anywhere to do this),
 * inappropriately made from his main account,
 * done at "bot-like speed", which an account not flagged as a bot really shouldn't ever do, even if approved to do the particular task.
 * (To which add, "creating what would be double-redirects, were they working redirects at all". e.g. at !Kora Language. Alai 17:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Ok. Thinking more about how to handle this.  The following are suggestions:
 * We begin to clean out (delete) the bulk of these redirects that were bot-created on the 4th and 5th. At current they are an unapproved, non-functional, bot-created mess, clogging up at least a couple of important tracking pages.
 * Gwern is asked to first get consensous of the very idea of this type of massive redirect. Not sure where he should be directed to for such a discussion, but it's definitely not appropriate for AN/I.  (Note that I FYIed him on this debate, so I'm hoping he'll drop in here at some point.  He appears to mostly edit in the evening, US time.)
 * Direct Gwern to the bot approval process, and asked to follow it before he launches the bot again. He *really* should not be testing a bot in his user-space without any sort of authorization.
 * Note that in all of this I am totally WP:AGF about Gwern. I have no reason at all to think this was anything other than good intentioned.  But it really, really needs to go through several more steps before anything like this is repeated. - TexasAndroid 17:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My preference would be 1. 'agree to give up on the whole idea', and 2. delete the existing instances. But he might want to press ahead with it, and if so, then as you say, he should take some sort of soundings about this (I can only think of Wikipedia talk:Redirect and WT:RFD, but I'm open to suggestions on a better location), and if that's at all favourable to the idea, go ahead with a bot approval request.  Clearing them out before he's had a chance to chime in here might look a bit hasty, if he's determined to go ahead with the idea (heaven forfend), whereas if he has no objection, all'll be well.  It should be said that some sort of unapproved 'testing' in the mainspace is more or less custom and practice, but not dozens or hundreds of such edits, at full-bot-speed, and only if closely manually supervised.  (Making the same mistake twice in a row isn't a good sign of appropriate "testing", much less 30 times in a minute.)  Alai 17:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He appears to have resumed making up to 15 (automated, unapproved and unflagged) edits per minute, though seemingly at present just fixing some of the broken redirects created last time:. Alai 03:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm assured it's just massive use of tabbed browsing, so never mind. Alai 05:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This one appears mostly resolved for now. User:Centrx cleared out the bulk of the bad redirects yesterday, so they are gone. So unless Gwern decides to fire up his bot again, I think this one is settled. - TexasAndroid 15:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Southphilly
The dispute on WP:AWARDS finally ended last night when an admin stepped in (thank you) and removed the coordinator section and voting restrictions that southphilly and evrik insisted on against consensus. We've got some good stuff going on over there now, with some really helpful new users in. Anyone else wanting to sign up would be welcome.

Unfortunately has taken up personally attacking me here, here, and somewhat subtly here. Apparently, in an accusation which Southphilly has also accused me of in the previous AN/I above, I "control" the project. I don't know what Southphilly's definition of control is, but I invite anyone to review the page, as I seriously doubt his claims. I am getting tired of Southphilly's bitter accusations and vindictive actions and ask that he be warned and/or blocked for his disruptive behaviour (he has also MfDed the entire Awards project because, ironically, he claims it "is too bureaucratic".) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Applying the "glass is half full" take on this, one might discern a temporal progression from "personal attack" to "subtle criticism". Either way, I don't think this requires admin action at this point.  I'd suggest waiting a while, and if it resumes, taking the matter up at, say, WP:WQA, or requesting mediation.  Let's hope there's no further outright disruption, at least.  Alai 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I just closed the MfD as a keep here. I'm going to sleep (way to avoid conflict for a few hours). If anyone wants to overturn and open, don't wait for my return. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think South Philly was making a point with the afd, however those three cited edits were in no way personal attacks. First, after arguing with you thuglas did leave the WikiProject, and then left wikipedia citing you as a reason. Second, this is your third post to this noticeboard in less than a week, in my opinion you create a lot of drama and rely on WP:BOLD alot, but not as much on Resolving disputes. Finally, people who say that other users exhibit in pathological hatred and appear to relish humiliating them should not throw so many stones. --evrik (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Drama" I would much rather have avoided - you're the one who insisted on your shiny Coordinator badge and straw polls for every edit. Resolving disputes would have been a waste of time given an administrator had to reprimand you both before you stopped. Thuglas left because of that edit war, you take as much blame as I. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So, now you're resorting to ad hominem attacks? Attacking me does not refute the facts, let me quote, "Im pretty sure i would have drop kicked Dev by this point - unfortunately the internet doesnt let me do that so i decided just to quit before i get any more mad. ." --evrik (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If there's any good faith here left to assume, or civility to share, can we please do so, or take this elsewhere -- like dispute resolution, as suggested above? Alai 20:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally would like to get on with editing the Wikipedia. South Philly and evrik seem to want to argue til the cows come home, and then send away the cows because there's no consensus on them coming home. Evrik, I am trying to work with you on WP:AWARDS, such as that Service awards thing, but your endless sniping is making it difficult. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I stopped editing for a long time because of the way people treat each other here. I am angered by Dev920's blatant abuse of the system (who the f--- files three notices at the ANI in a week?), and her power grab. Evrik worked long and fairly to make sure that the system was working and repeatedly asked for everyone's help. After the dust settles, I am contemplating leaving Wikipedia for good because of Dev920.

This should have been mediated long before it was brought to the administrators. I've now been mentioned three times at the ANI this week by Dev920 - and I don't think it's fair. --South Philly 13:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe if Southphilly would stop being so abusive I wouldn't have to keep coming here. Note that this is brought up every single day at the same time - when southphilly starts editing. I am genuinely confused about southphilly's accusation that I am grabbing power: what fucking power? How is contributing to a wikiproject controlling it? Seriously, what the hell is he talking about? I haven't removed anyone's messages, I haven't, significantly, started a revert war with anyone because I want my own way, I have no idea why southphilly insists on posting such accusations about me here, on the project page and now on Alai's page. It's insane. Southphilly posted a personal attack against me on WT:AWARDS claiming I had ousted evrik from the project and had "taken over" when evrik is still posting on the page. Given my only experience with South philly has been to observe his endless attempts to get his own way against all reason and opposition, I can only think when he leaves Wikipedia will be better for it. I am going to get on with my work now, and I hope Southphilly will see the sense of quitting before he makes himself looks even more irrational. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiLoco

 * Repeated vandalizingofthesame information (despite consensus). Other vandalism on other pages. Warnings abound on his talk page. McKay 15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * another McKay 14:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Mainpage Essjay picture
Am I the only one who thinks that displaying Essjay's photograph with a DYK item on the Main Page is grossly inappropriate? Newyorkbrad 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Who signed off on that? Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nishkid64, it seems. Not one of his better choices, IMO. -- ChrisO 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate how? Hbdragon88 23:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mainly the fact that its totally self-referential- comes across as "ooh, look at us we're Wikipedia, aren't we important"? Also its unnecessarily unpleasant to Essjay. Oh and its rather POV- I mean he didn't fake credentials, he just claimed to have some he actually didn't have. WjBscribe 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. And we don't even know that it's Essjay. Trebor 23:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, and so does Dragonfly, who has removed it. —<font color="#555">bbatsell  <font color="#C46100" size="1">¿?  <font color="#2C9191" size="3">✍  23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate as in highly insensitive, and also grossly Wikipedia-centric. This is starting to look like organised persecution, frankly. -- ChrisO 23:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it's inappropriate. Have some dignity, people. &mdash; Dan | talk 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse both the pic removal and the removal of the article itself from DYK. Ill-advised. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 100% Endorse removal - Munta 23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why pour more salt in the wound? Grand  master  ka  23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Putting the ethical issue aside this picture has no relable basis of fact. No one can confirm that this is Essjay. If someone uploads the portrait of Leonardo to wiki claiming it to be oneself, this would be as much reliable. Whatever people think about leaving him alone at last (or refusing to), ethics is more of a feeling while WP:RS is a policy. Support the removal. --Irpen 23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly fine with the removal. Someone added that to Next update and I moved it to the Main Page. While it was at T:DYKT, no one seemed to complain about the image, or the hook, so I did not see any potential problem there.  Nish kid 64  23:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was added to the update page by Parker007 . WjBscribe 23:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, what I said only applies to Essjay's supposed image, not the DYK text entry on which I am not opining here. --Irpen 00:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as a side note... I really don't understand the reasoning behind it not being there. It seems like people are hiding behind self-reference as a way to keep mention of the scandal off the front page. --Dookama 23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I glanced at the article before and it basically said about the picture, "I don't know, this was posted to the user page so maybe it's him but maybe it's some random other living person we're now associating with this event." Honestly, I think there's a good case that could be made for its removal entirely on that ground alone.  Bitnine 23:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Try to assume good faith. When one proposed DYK hook was tasteless and inflamatory, and there were others that could have replace it, that's exactly what should have happened. The removal wasn't censorship, it was the correction of a mistake, which was placing the hook there the first time. (And even if that wasn't the case, WP:ASR is yet another reason it shouldn't be on the Main page.) Picaroon 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Feelings are running high in the community regarding essjay at them moment - but we're not here to serve ourselves - we're here to serve 'those out there'. The issue has gained wide publicity - today I read a report of the issue on the BBC - this exposure is going to generate traffic. Stepping back from my opinions as a wikipedian (And I'm conflicted as the next man on this - great wikipedian but possibly damaging etc. etc.) the press it's generated and the way the community deals with such things is good for us and our profile - it was a good and brave call putting it on the front page at this time and I welcome it. Upsetting for essjay? undoubtedly. Good for the wider community - well maybe.--Joopercoopers 01:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, stupid navel-gazing! Endorse removal of both the picture and the DYK.  I'm all for the "persecution" (which I would call examination) of the matters behind Essjay and ramifications to Essjay of his mendacity, but this is an internal matter, and we are not an issue for DYK.  Heck, a lot of the "did you knows" lately have been "did you care?"  In this case, the photo is of a person who may not be Essjay, and all of this folderol is self-reference.  Geogre 13:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy article now on AfD

 * Articles for deletion/Essjay controversy

The article is back at AfD under its new title having been nominated by Cool Cat. WjBscribe 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy closed by Mikkalai. WjBscribe 00:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing requests for moves with active discussions
An admin closed the discussion on Clamp (manga artists) despite there being discussion going on even as he boxed it up. Is not the continuing active discussion on the talk page the definition of an "active discussion"? According to Husond (with funky characters), it does not appear to be so. Can I get some clarification here? Also, the template states "with clear consensus", but there was no consensus on the page. Should a "no consensus" closure be allowed while there continues to be debate? Kyaa the Catlord 02:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Again: 1) Move proposal was active for the 5-day period until it got listed on WP:RM's backlog. 2) Any admin may close a proposal after this time. 3) Especially if it's clear that there's never going to be any consensus and therefore no move. 4) Because a majority of users are opposing it. 5) So please avoid creating new polls. 6) And be WP:CIVIL.-- Hús  ö  nd  02:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * History: The original move was done with no consensus, it was a badly done move (it lost the original page's history, etc), should it not be moved back to original, historic article at least to save the page history? (Yes, this is a bloody mess) Kyaa the Catlord 02:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out Husond ignored the following passage from the "closing a request for move" directions for admins when he speedy closed the discussion after I relisted it: "If a discussion is ongoing or has not reached a reasonable conclusion, relist it." I don't hold any further desire to revisit this debacle, but I felt that perhaps it would be best if someone would point out that proper procedure was denied. Kyaa the Catlord 12:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is only feasible to relist if there are prospects that a consensus will be reached if more time is given to the discussion. Not the case here. Polls can't last forever.-- Hús  ö  nd  13:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this warrant a block?
I saw this edit while reverting vandalism from that IP. It happened a couple of days ago, so I think it's too old for AIV. Should any action be taken for that particular edit? Robotman1974 06:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a threat of physical attack, but it's made to a -bot. Then again, we block for the threat of attack, not the likelihood of its fulfillment.  Seems to be a dynamic IP, though, so a block probably won't do any good unless we find the user in the act.  Geogre 13:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why and how is User:Scott3 a bot? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I was apparently mistiming my drugs.  You're right.  It is a threat of attack, so yes, it is a block offense, if we can catch the IP at work.  I see that the user has gotten a "this is your last warning" warning, so a block at the next hint of trouble.  Geogre 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Macedonia
has long been criticised for using his user page as a political soapbox. This has basically been his only activity on Wikipedia for over half a year. After comments on this RfC, I felt justified in deleting his page (twice, after another attempt by him) and telling him that henceforth no political content whatsoever would be tolerated there. There was also an attempt to get him to change his username, which however was rejected at WP:RFC/N. He now put up this:. Note again his political jibe at "Greek fabricators who continue to spread anti-Macedonian and facist propaganda", and his wording about the RFC/N "keeping the name of my userpage MACEDONIA" - that seems to show that the userpage, rather than anything else he does on Wikipedia, is really the only thing he cares about.

Unless there are objections here, I'll delete that page again, and I'm considering a block warning and/or page protection if he tries this once more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, honestly I can't see any real harm coming from this user. Deleting his userpage and blocking him might be a violation of WP:NOT and WP:NOT so I guess I would not support these harsh measures. Sorry. :-/ Hús  ö  nd  13:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I disagree. The present contents are a personal attack at the least (the thing about the "Greek fabricators" and their "fascist propaganda" is directed at fellow Wikipedians, not some abstract Greek opponents elsewhere). And enforcing WP:USER isn't censorship. We've deleted pages and (I think) even blocked users for doing much more harmless things with their pages - various cases of kids using theirs as a chatroom come to mind. This user's pages, for well over a year now, have always been breaches of the no-soapboxing rules of WP:USER. And he's been playing cat-and-mouse with the community over it during all this time - always seemingly acquiescing to enforced removals of offensive content whenever people had lost their patience with him, and then sneakily letting the page grow again with new rants. As I told him last time, I'm sick and tired arguing with him just how much political content is acceptable, when I know he's going to dodge it in a week again. That's why I thought we should set him an easy-to-remember and unambiguous limit this time: zero political content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see your point. I don't tend to be politically correct and I have a rather lenient attitude towards users who express their animosity towards a specific entity as long as they don't start making personal attacks or other kind of disruptive behavior. However, I checked the deleted versions of his user page and it does seem like this user's been using his userpage as a provocative soapbox only. I have a long experience of warmongering users from the Balkans and a firm response is often the best remedy. So yeah, go ahead and give him a last warning.-- Hús  ö  nd  14:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Tell The Thruth / Peniel Pentecostal Church
- repeated page blankings and undiscussed reverts, despite warnings, to Peniel Pentecostal Church and Talk:Peniel Pentecostal Church. Tearlach 13:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My article
Please can someone delete my article, I hate the entire thing. It's appalling and insulting to me. --Keanu Reeves 13:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * User blocked, nothing to see here. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">z</FONT> talk 14:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hkelkar, again
Just another note: Hkelkar has also been running a spambot from the University of Texas IP addresses, it's been used to spam multiple forums and wikis with links to his case on here, and it's been done so often, that we've been IP-banned and IP-blocked from forums and wikis, with the IT department having to resolve it frequently.

If you see anon IPs editing like Hkelkar, be aware that they will usually have a spambot running, so be careful.... --Trudiruddsen 13:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Slow, sneaky vandalism from 12.208.153.82 (again).
As previously menionted here, has a history of silently altering figures in articles. This IP was blocked on Feb 15 for doing so, and SpuriousQ complained about this vandal returning about a week ago (see his note in WP:AN Archive 208). His most changes are, , , , etc. As SpuriousQ mentioned, "this kind of vandalism is particularly pernicious because it is likely to go undetected (as a several of his edits have)." He has been warned multiple times, with no response. His edit rate is rather low so AIV doesn't seem the place to report and the earlier block did not appear to be long enough to get his attention. Would someone consider placing a longer block on this IP? —RP88 14:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've blocked it for a year. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 14:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment
Moved to subpage. --Random832 16:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Editor posting full name of another editor
Dman727 posted private information, including the full name of another editor Here. This is a bit of a sticky wicket because Eschoir is a user name which could be used to get this info on the intrawebs - but then again - he told Dman he objected to his name being published on Wiki and asked DMan to refactor it. Dman did not do so - so I just did. - FaAfA (yap) 03:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. I posted the full text of a public court document. Only AFTER I posted the court document did the user confirm that this was his case.  The user Eschoir made the connection after the fact. If the user had not identified himself as being the author of the court document, the connection between the wiki screen name and real name would not be known. Relevant diffs.,  .  Finally please advise if posting of freely available public court documents is contrary to wiki policy and I'll gladly cease and apologize. Dman727 04:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, FAAFA, I appreciate and thank you for refactoring it as the user requested. I would have done so, but you were much faster than I and removed his name 6 minutes after the user requested it. I hope you don't find me at fault for being away from wiki during those 6 minutes ;) Dman727 04:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Update. After further discussion with the wikipedian in question I have removed, per his request the entire remaining text of the public document from the talk page.  FAAFA is correct that the document in question and the users identity is freely available via "intrawebs", however, there is no reason not to respect the wishes of the user in question here on wiki.  If an admin would be so kind as to remove the diff history Here(containing the full name) I would greatly appreciate it. Dman727 18:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Edits of this nature should be oversighted. You may send an e-Mail to oversight-l[at]lists[dot]wikimedia[dot]org to get that done. TML 22:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

5th millennium and
Because of the way sr:50. век (50th century) is set up, many of the centuries are linked to 5th millennium by that bot. Is there an exception to WP:3RR for reverting a rouge bot? &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Administrators are usually good at applying common sense over the letter of policy. This is obviously one of those times. Grand  master  ka  22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy
I've just fully protected this - the article had at least 5 users edit warring (all within the last hour) and try as I did to begin to warn them; it seemed more just kept jumping in. So, I've sent them all to the talk page (discussions on The Wrong Version have already started). Thoughts? Glen 10:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are that it should be a sub-stub. It's a news release rather than an article to talk about this controversy, as it's still underway.  I hate it when people try to write an "article" on something that has just begun to happen.  When they do, they become a secondary source -- journalists -- instead of a tertiary source -- encyclopedists.  If a person is reporting, then she or he is not writing an encyclopedia article.  This is in addition to the fact that "the controversy" can't be written about until it has a defined shape, with cause, event, and effect.  The "effect" bit is still nebulous.  Wikipedia is not CNN (or the Drudge Report or Skippy the Bush Kangaroo).  Geogre 13:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with User:Geogre. I've been editing fairly heavily on the article mostly in an effort to keep the thing half-way decent and inline with policy. I tried to hold off on editing it but found that it was glaringly out of step in terms of policy and since my first edits I've made efforts to combat that. 13:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As usual I agree with The Geogre. In a year or so we may have a clear idea of the historical import of this, if there is any, but right now we really don't.  A stub with a link to Wikinews (which is for news, unlike Wikipedia which is not) would be fine. How can we record what the considered view of the world is, when the world has barely begun to consider the thing?  All we get is a series of gut reactions, and often very poorly informed ones at that. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This article represents a unfortunate Catch 22 situation. Having an article is overfocusing on current news, self-referential and seems to overtrumpet the importannce of Wikipedia. But deleting the article (or most of its content) looks like a cover-up and gives some the impression that we wish to hide the controversy that surrounded Essjay's retirement to save embarassment. Hopefully once the dust has settled we'll be in a better position to decide how an encyclopedia should cover this controversy if at all... WjBscribe 17:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For now the article will need strict attention from policy wonks like me and others. Eventually I think it will stabilize. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Geogre. Or, rather, our current practice strongly disagrees with Geogre, so strongly that what I think isn't that relevant. Look at the Main Page, the page most users see as representing the Wikipedia. See the In the news section? It's rather prominent. Everything on it is "something that has just begun to happen", or was when it was added. The only difference is that they aren't embarassments to us. Tell you what, "sub-stub" Garuda Indonesia Flight 200, Lewis Libby, and Estonian parliamentary election, 2007 (just to name the top 3 items in that section today), and if those actions get community approval, then come back here saying it is clear Wikipedia policy not to have articles on recent events until the effect is clear. Until then, it wouldn't just look like a cover-up, it would be a cover-up. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Um ... I don't think that we have had much success in covering this situation up. In fact, I think it has long since taken on a completely disproportionate importance. Newyorkbrad 18:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could it partially be a reaction to how people are treating it in comparison to other similarly-referenced events, though? Certainly, the community's closeness to the subject lends extra detail, but when people keep reacting that we don't need this article, or that it should disappear, when there's no significant reason beyond the IDONTLIKEIT situation, it's merely asking for more detail and more attention, is it not? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How disproportionate it is not clear. We're the #11 web site in the world, and we had a scandal with one of our most highly trusted users: Bureaucrat (22 of them), Arbitrator (15 of them), and CheckUser (13 of them), all at once. Is it really that disproportionate? The #13 web site is Microsoft.com, the #14 is EBay - if one of their top dozen people was forced to resign under a scandal, do you think it would substantially less coverage? In any case, the point of I'm saying is that the proposal to "sub-stub" the article is clearly wrong. Even if the coverage the media gave it is disproportionate, and that is not clear, they did give it substantial coverage, and it is not up to us to second-guess them. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay Talk page History
As there is no talk page to discuss this, and the page is protected, could somebody comment on this recent change



I feel that having the two links on the talk page are valid links. Some people who are new to Wikipedia, having come here to read up about the controvercy, may not know how to navigate the history. The inclusion of the links made clear that Wikipedia wasn't censoring information and also helped novices find the details that they were looking for.

Regards - Munta 15:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * They can find the button at the top of the page. If not, then oh well, these are the type of people who slow down to look at a car accident. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think thats rather dismissive of people who use Wikipedia. I came here first to research - now I edit. It took me days to realise I could look at the full history of an article - So these are our future editors you are are dismissing. - Munta 15:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would you be reading Essjay's talk page history if you were just researching? What casual reader would care about internal strife we had once? -Amarkov moo! 15:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think characterising this situation as 'internal strife' is dismissive, at best. – riana_dzasta 15:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We have an article on the Essjay controversy, unfortunately, so you can read about it there. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why it's necessary to get rid of the links. I say that if Essjay left them there, preserve his page as he wanted it kept. --Dookama 18:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone who cares about the reliability and trustworthiness of WP would want to see the details of this particular dispute, for it bears upon the credibility of everything we have been doing. It is not a minor incident in the development of WP--it is by now universally known to anyone who knows about WP at all, and there is no point trying to pretend otherwise.
 * Within WP, Essjay is (was) a public figure. When he chose to give interviews to a reporter for an internationally known  magazine he became a public figure in the most direct way.
 * Why we would conceal the details--obviously, because we are ashamed of them. And well we should be; but the only way to restore our reputation is to admit the details of our failings. Consider other cases of attempts to hide information that ought to be public--first of all, within the last six years--and more generally. Those associated with Enron or its accountants have good reason to wish the details private, but everyone else as even better reason to keep them public. some political figures are aware of how they will look to history, and thus have good reason to keep their documents from public view. I doubt they will get away with it. Nixon too tried to conceal the documentation.
 * We are not quite as important as those people in a world-wide sense--but within our own part of the world we are. I try to persuade other librarians to use WP--it will now be much more difficult. I try to persuade faculty whom I know to contribute--it will now be very much harder--they now have good reason to prefer one of he competitive projects.

IWISHITWERENTSO. DGG 18:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He didn't, they were added by the page protector at my suggestion so that the paranoid couldn't claim people were trying to hide the comments. Even if you can find the history they are still useful because you can go directly to the two major revisions easily rather than needing to search through an obscenely long diff list. --tjstrf talk 18:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am glad that you are taking positive steps to preserve the records appropriately.DGG 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User PaxEquilibrium again
I was once again cleared by Checkuser here as not being anyone's sockpuppet and this user files another (identical) accusation yet again. Besides similar IP's there is absolutly no similarity between me and this person, yet he continues to accuse me. He also put this on my main page: !!! How long will I be harassed by this raving madman before someone tells him to stop? Tar-Elenion 18:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: The previous CheckUser did not clear Tar-Elenion of sock-puppetry suspect. It was declined due to the fact that Tar-Elenion was inactive (no data). That's why I re-filed the RFCU immediately after the User in question became active again.


 * I have to note that this is slightly annoying that this User is repeating this (this same thing was done by Afrika paprika while he was User:Factanista) because if User talk:Tar-Elenion is carefully inspected, it will be seen that I've explained this twice on the user's talk page and twice more additionally elsewhere. As for the tag, I fully stand by it because that's the proper thing to do. --PaxEquilibrium 19:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it did. I was not cleared based on my inactivity but due to inactivity of this AfrikaPaprika. What is imporant however was that I was cleared. Even the recent checkuser (which is identical to the last one rejected) implied you are fishing. Beside the similar IP between me and this person (BTW I disclosed my IP to Pax on his talk page) there is absolutly no proof of me being a sockpuppet, least that of this AfrikaPaprika character. I already tried reasoning with this person but he is stuborn and keeps hurling his ridiculous accusation insults at me. I don't know what argument he has with this AfrikaPaprika but I am simply not him (or her). Tar-Elenion 20:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(Merged from dupe section) Tar-Elenion recently contacted me, asking me to have a word with PaxEquilibrium. The two appear to be reverting back and forth over a sockpuppet template on Tar-Elenion's userpage. As we can quickly see from the argument on Tar-Elenion's user talk, this situation has escalated quite a bit. Requests for checkuser/Case/Afrika paprika is relevant. Beyond that, I'm getting a feeling this situation is too complex for me to act alone -- anybody have opinions? – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's my take. The IPs belong to the T-Mobile Croatia network.  Both Tar-Elenion and AfrikaPaprika edited Croatia-related articles.  It's not at all out of the question (disregarding edits for the moment) that they are two independent editors both from Croatia using the same ISP editing articles about their home country.  However, it's entirely possible that they are not.  So, Pax, if you can properly apply the duck test and e-mail me the proof that you have that these two editors are one and the same, and I will block if I find it sufficient (and will forward the information to all administrators or editors in good standing requesting it (WP:BEANS and all that jazz)).  Sound good? —<font color="#555">bbatsell  <font color="#C46100" size="1">¿?  <font color="#2C9191" size="3">✍  20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He has no proof. All he has is my IP which BTW was revealed to him by me and the supposed "similar intrests" I have with that of this person which basically means all Croatia related stuff. It seems to me that to him anyone editing articles related Croatia (and so most likely from Croatia) is a sockpuppet of this AfrikaPaprika. Tar-Elenion 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Bbatsell, would that be OK - Afrika paprika as Factanista (before) appealed how I was conspiring behind his backs. If I e-mail you all proofs in one package and you block Tar, I fear the same reaction and regardless of the fact that I'm pretty much convinced that Tar-Elenion is Afrika paprika himself (who sent Jesus Christ to f**k my mother and vandalized my user page for 18 times adding insulting homosexual crimes including a war criminal), I still think that it would be somewhat unjust. --PaxEquilibrium 21:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well that would explain it, thing is I am not this AfrikaPaprika. Checkuser confirmed so. I am asking you what "proof" do you have I am this person? Besides blatant accusations and your supposed conviction (suspcion really) of me being this person, what else is there? Are similarities in IP's and interest in the same field (rather wide field of interest - Croatia-related articles) enough? Especially when you are accusing the wrong person. Now please send him the "proof" and let we be done with this. Tar-Elenion 21:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop saying that CheckUser cleared you. As has been explained numerous times, it has not cleared you.  Pax, I encourage you to e-mail me your information.  It's a pretty standard way of dealing with sockpuppets, and as I said, it will be available to anyone in good standing who requests here or on my talk page (or on yours, I'd imagine).  —<font color="#555">bbatsell  <font color="#C46100" size="1">¿?  <font color="#2C9191" size="3">✍  21:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * E-mailed. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 22:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this case, this edit where one user apparently refers to Tar as "Afrika". Can't think of why they would do that unless they knew something... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The direct translation's included in my e-mail to Bbatsell. You'll get the info. --PaxEquilibrium 22:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is quite interesting, isn't it? At the same moment when Pax is making the accusation at User talk:Tariqabjotu this person "GreaterCroatia" comes and refers to me as this "AfrikaPaprika". I find this to be too great coincedance and that "GreaterCroatia" is in fact Pax sockpuppet, you know so that he can have an alibi and say "aha, see someone referred to him as AfrikaPaprika". I can think of no other reason.


 * Also another interesting bit I found after quick search on Google is that Pax also accused Kubura (Requests for checkuser/Case/Kubura) being a sockpuppet of this "AfrikaPaprika" on the same ground as he is accusing me here as well - Kubura is also a member from Croatia and also often edits Croatia-related articles. Who knows how many innocent users jut like me he accused, only he knows. Tar-Elenion 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Rush tours
I found an OTRS complaint form the author of a Rush tribute book, stating that the tour dates listed in some articles on Rush tours were a copyright violation and impeded his ability to sell an updated version.

Although I am not really convinced that you can copyright a list of dates which is available on the back of every tour shirt sold, about half the articles had no content other than a fair use image of an album cover (copyvio; can only be used in the article on the album) and an infobox; those that had dates lists were unformatted and unreferenced, in short there did not seem to be anythign there actually worth having. I removed them from Rush. There may be kickback. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a regular editor at that page, I will leave a link to this on the talk pages of a few of the regs, that should clear it up, Guy. ThuranX 22:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't personally see the encyclopedic worth in tour dates anyway, but that's just me. JuJube 22:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Vaguely rings a bell somewhere about disputes around one (or more) of these lists (not copyvio) but I could be mistaken. Not sure about the copyrighting of lists as generally you can't copyright factual information, though things like telephone directories do claim copyright. It would seem unlikely the author of a tribute book might have ownership of such copyright anyway. From your description though, sounds like they were adding little encyclopedic value and probably fail not an indiscriminate collection of information --pgk 22:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * One can copyright the specific layout of a given set of factual information, so long as the layout has some artistic or creative function beyond simply dumping the information, but not the information itself. (That's why you often see more than one phone directory in an area, just with different titles and designs.) Therefore, a scanned image of the book cover or page would be a copyvio, but simply putting the same information here as there is not. Still, seems to fail WP:NOT, as stated above. If information itself could be copyrighted, we'd be committing a copyvio every time we paraphrased a source! Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 22:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * More being sidetracked than necessarily applicable here, if your interested in this sort of thing, would be this --pgk 23:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit summaries at N.W.A.
A Wikiquette alert, well, alerted me to the gross incivility displayed in the edit summaries of and  at N.W.A.'s history page. I gave both WP:NPA warnings at their talk pages (level 3 for User:Kemor and level 4 (previous notice) for User:Payne2thamax). These two editors appear to be engaged in an edit war at the article; perhaps some intervention by someone more powerful and more knowledgable about the topic than I would calm the situation. (Originally posted at WP:AN in error. Sorry.) --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 08:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * removed two WP:NPA warnings from his talk page. I asked him to please not do that and reverted the selective blanking. Was that the appropriate move? --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 20:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No. The purpose of warning someone is to try to convince them to stop the behavior in question.  By removing the warnings, they've proven that they've seen the warnings.  Attempting to force them to keep the warnings on their talkpage will usually just make the situation worse. --Carnildo 00:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've blocked indef for this  I mean, really, death threats are a no no. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by User:Ukrained

 * User calls me by a derogatory version of my name real name Alexander — Sashok from the Russian nickname Sasha. Now although it is disputable that Sashok is actually an insult and there are cases when it cannot be e.g. a grandfather calling his grandson. However when a rival person, and in wikipedia we do assume that we are equal in age...at least formally, calling another person with that name, who is not a close friend is insulting and I find it so, and in the context that he is using it . Furthermore this is not the first time he has done so. And was warned of a personal attack (dif) one of the links include several entries in which he has referred to me as such. I believe that as a wikipedian I have the right not to be Insulted, Harassed and intimidated. Furthermore user makes numerous disrespectful remarks to my background, which borders on racism. Now until recently I have ignored it, but this is not the first time and my patience is not eternal. --Kuban Cossack 23:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on the issue. Here is what I can say. The user chooses to perpetually harass me all the time. Some diffs from only the latest times:
 * attack on another editor (see edit summary)
 * attack on myself and yet a third editor
 * frivolous warning
 * attack on me and host of editors calling them "Irpen Group" (gross ABF)
 * attack on myself (again) and two other editors
 * unveiled attempt to recruit help to launch a revert war
 * another grossly ABF attack
 * another call for an edit war
 * same here
 * reaction to admin warning that he retitled into "Another intimidation attempt by the Irpen Group", the edit summary "мене не залякати" translates as "I won't be scared" (!)
 * second response to admin warning, or best yet check the whole thread

Now, I choose to simply ignore Ukrained and his filthy mouthed friend despite I am the aim of their trolling but Kuban kazak is under no obligation to be as patient.

AlexPU just fresh from a one week block is now again trolling full-trottle:,. See also the edit summary to in reverting my totally innocuous edit

How many times was AlexPU "warned" is difficult to even say. More than a dozen. I will only link to the discussions about him at this very board:
 * Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive207,
 * Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive207
 * Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive115
 * Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive105
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive107 (where a community ban was discussed even)
 * Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive97

Now, I must say that I am on the record opposing the blocks for mere PA, especially an occasional one. But blocks for disruption is something else and sometimes habitual trolling becomes a disruption. I don't care whether the fellows get blocked, actually. But I am providing my own observations since I was asked. --Irpen 00:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A little something to add. I would not support any sort of a lengthy block of a user Ukrained. Whatever problems that he has with me, I am very thick-skinned and usually ignore his whining, something that Kuban kazak chose not to ignore (a position to which he is also entitled.) I must say that Ukrained's article edits are usually more reasonable than his talk page entries which are mostly either offensive or horrific. If there is any way to relay to him a message that he should stop the disruption (prior warnings did not work) that may be a better idea than a long block. As for AlexPU, I do not care a least bit. Most of his recent activity is pure trolling. Anyway, I thought I should mention it. --Irpen 01:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can only second Kazak's and Irpen's request. Both users have a disruption record as long as my arm, starting from "classic" disruption and insults as evidenced by the diffs above, to straight and blind criticism of an elected arbitrator because of his nationality and ignoring warnings from an admin in a quite insulting form . I say both need to be brought in order, and this far, there is unfortunately only one possible solution... :( --  Grafikm  <sup style="color:red;">(AutoGRAF)  01:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a well-written, well considered explanation of the problem. I've had smaller run ins with AlexPU who is totally incivil, and more importantly disruptive. He constantly engages in tendentious editing at articles related to Ukraine, constantly pushes a Ukrainian nationalist POV and calls everyone who disagrees with him "anti-Ukrainian or "Soviet". When he got into an argument with me over his POV pushing, he accused me of being a part of an Irpen-led anti-Ukrainian cabal, admitted that he and a few of his pals were Ukrainian nationalists, called Irpen a "Traitor", and basically told me that if I didn't take sides against Irpen that I would become his (AlexPU's) enemy. . He refuses to acknowledge consensus refuses to discuss his edits and instead engages in stubborn revert wars. This is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, and in the interests of all, I thoroughly support an indefinite block, of AlexPU (who was already blocked for making the ridiculous personal attack on my talk). TheQuandry 02:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Ukrained for 24 hours and AlexPU for 2 weeks. He has just come off of a one-week block and has resumed making personal attacks almost immediately. Given his long history of making them, I think this block's length is appropriate. If another admin disagrees with either of these blocks, feel free to let me know. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 02:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support blocks. Good call. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat needs attention
Please see threat of legal action here. Not sure if this is the correct place to report, but WP:NLT doesn't specify the place to go. Raymond Arritt 00:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the correct place to report. Looks like an unacceptable legal threat to me. Strongly warn, and block if not retracted, or block straight away? Newyorkbrad 00:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indefblocked. Legal threats, veiled or otherwise, are not tolerated. And that was a veiled legal threat. I told the user we can't stop them from taking legal action, but that we don't tolerate legal threats on Wikipedia. I also told him there is no right to free speech on Wikipedia, which he seems to think there is. --Deskana (talk)   (review me please)  01:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the relevant article, Motionless Electrical Generator, reminds me of a Zero Point Module. --Deskana (talk)   (review me please)  01:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Alsace
Hey there,

I require an administrator for explaining correctly to the american User:R9tgokunks that Alsace is RIGHTFULLY a part of France nowadays... I'm living in this region for ever, and no one around me think that we feel as german. Okay, the thousand years old villages' names have got a germanic sound and some found habit come from Germans one. NEVERTHELESS, Alsace is French no more. The official language is French, we hace got french institution, we speak french every day, we watch french TV... No one around me feels that Alsace is actualy a part of Germany !!! So I try unsuccessfully to explain this fact to User:R9tgokunks, but this one don't pay attention to my request, and continue to reverse the article Alsace without any explaination. I hope that you will convinced him or excluded him on Wikipédia for some days as a simple warning. Sincerily user:Paris75000 01:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

NB : It seems that User:R9tgokunks is always walking on the line... (have a look to User talk:R9tgokunks)


 * Administrators can't explain such things to users, unless they're experts in the subject, in which case they can because they're experts, not because they are administrators. --Deskana (talk)   (review me please)  01:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Banana Boomerang
This page is consistently getting remade after deletion. User:Bananarang probably has a WP:COI, due to his name. All edits are either redirects to Calzone, or speedy-deletion tag removal. User claims that his 'academic friends' think it's a perfectly reasonable redirect (see Talk:Banana Boomerang).

I put this here because he's done it repeatedly - however, he hasn't recieved a full set of warnings, (some haven't been added) so I didn't think WP:AIV was appropriate. <font style="background-color:#cedff2;font-size:100%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid#a3b0bf;text-align:center;color:#000;">Scalene •UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•<font style="color:#00F;">Є • 02:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple violations of WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:DE by
I have had conflicts with this user for quite some time now, and lately I have been very patient with his non-stop personal attacks, but I have had enough. The most recent violation -- him calling me an "ass" -- was only the last straw in a series of abusive comments and actions. On the Christopher Hitchens page, the user removed extremely well-sourced and relevant commentary with the demand that my references must be online rather than from print sources. I found this absurd and anti-intellectual, and I posted a note to the WP:RS talk page] to that effect. There was unanimous agreement that such a demand was absurd. On the Hitchens talk page, Armon explained that my sources must be online because I had been "caught misrepresenting offline sources," a charge I found absurd and in violation of WP:AGF as well as WP:NPA. His "evidence" for the charge was an unexplained link to a discussion from weeks ago. When challenged on this point he simply stated that the evidence was on the page and reasserted his demand that I provide online sources. This seems to me an absurd form of WP:DE -- excluding sources because they are in print is ridiculous. Even if he was correct that they needed to be "fact-checked," the claim that offline sources cannot be fact-checked is ridiculous. I'm sure Armon (or anyone else) can get ahold of a library card if they think it is necessary to check if I am making up quotes. After discussion on my talk page -- with Armon continually accusing me in more and more hysterical terms of lying and deception -- it became clear that the so-called "lie" was a misunderstanding and a difference of opinion rather than a lie, and it also became clear that the so-called "lie" was about a tangential argument on a talk page rather than about something put into an article. I asked him to stop calling me names and I asked him to apologize for his violations of NPA and AGF; instead he continued to accuse me and then he called me an ass.

This is really just the tip of the iceberg. I have tried to be very patient with this user even while he has been goading me to overreact. But I have had enough of this. Actions like this are totally disruptive -- if he has real problems with an edit I make, that is fine to bring to discussion, but to raise a complete canard as a justification for deleting evidence that everyone agrees comes from a reliable source, and then to make the demand that all sources be available online, while calling me names and taunting me the whole time, is disruptive and deleterious to the project of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commodore Sloat (talk • contribs)


 * A very interesting case of WP:POT, or more accurately, an editor who believes that attack is the best defence. The complaining editor has been exteremly uncivil and disruptive, and has bee called on it numerous times, includign on this project page. He has also usied this page as a platform to for canvassing, and has been called on it as well. Isarig 00:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Isarig is incorrect here. The specific charge of "canvassing" was withdrawn by the admin who made it after I explained more clearly what I was doing; I don't think there are any lingering doubts about my sincerity here.  I have really been bending over backwards to not report this user, and it is only being called an "ass" that was the final straw for me leading to filing this report. csloat 00:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I just posted to csloat's talk page appealing for WP:AGF, and was summarily greeted there by Armon, who responded by calling sloat a megalomaniac, and basically contesting the validity of my post requesting good faith and civility from all sides. While I am a colleague of csloat's and so I have my biases, I'm hopeful that all these folks can focus on the issue at hand, rather than create reasons not to be civil. Upon a cursory review, my view of the recent 'hot activity' between Isarig, Armon, csloat, etc. seems to be an ongoing pattern with numerous editors tag-teaming to oppose csloat on political articles where he makes his edits.
 * To me, it appears a number of the editors opposing sloat believe that WP:AGF is not required - and they are in fact using bad faith to 'goad' csloat. To me, a lack of willingness to conduct oneself with self-respect is the cause of the conflict, not an argument over this edit or that edit. Csloat's edits are substantial and verifiable, in as far as I was able to determine. His conduct is at times unhelpful, but most editors who find themselves in situations like this 'slip up' and take the 'hostility bait' from time to time. That's why csloat, in response, can't risk being uncivil at all - if he takes the bait, he's only validating their attempt and nullifying any factual high ground he may occupy. Tough to stay on the 'high road' under attacks like that - in any case I hope Armon, Isarig and csloat get past this issue, provide a modicum of good faith and work to deal with article space issues constructively. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Attributing malice to those who criticize sloat is a failure on your part to AGF and is based on an incorrect assessment of the situation. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * One act of good faith last June really does not make up for the recent attacks on my character or the disruptive editing. csloat 01:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is, that you were given the AGF. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 03:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. Last June.  Once.  I got the point, it just has no relevance here whatsoever. csloat 06:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately this time I found out about this report, so in this case, unlike others, I will be able to respond. There are two issues, one, saying "stop being an ass" is not the same as calling someone an ass -a semantic but important difference. He was attempting to twist my words into an insult on another editor, which is perfectly clear if anyone reads the post I responded to. Isarig's point that this is a case of WP:POT, is well put. Secondly sloat recently received a block for a BLP violation against Hitchens on a talk page. This was subsequently overturned by another admin as having been too long ago, but there was no argument that it was in fact a BLP vio. He had also had inserted poorly sourced blogged insults about his drinking into the Hitchens article. When this was removed he repeatedly reinserted it until he came up with a new version which pov-pushed his assertion that Hitchens is an alcoholic. Aside from the fact that this version was still not compliant with BLP, there was also the problem of his use of offline cites to make his case. Normally offline cites are fine, but when they're used to pov-push by an editor who has just violated BLP, and who has misrepresented cites in the past, then I think it's reasonable to demand that everyone be able to assess them. I doubt some of the periodicals he cited are available in New Zealand, and as he cited google hits as evidence of the notability of the topic, there should be no problem finding online RS sources -in fact I submitted one myself. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 02:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On #1, I did feel it was a reasonable claim that Elizmr was pretending not to understand something obvious. It;s not relevant to Armon's objectionable behavior.  I was also not twisting his words in any way - the other editor I named was one who made the claim that Armon said was only made by "partisan detractors."  So my question was quite reasonable and certainly didn't merit being called an ass.
 * as always, when you do it, it is a "reasonable claim". when others do it to you, it suddenly becomes a violation WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:DE. As I wrote, WP:POT, and as Armon wrote on you Talk page, this is quite appropriate. Isarig 03:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On #2, Armon is misrepresenting the issue -- the block was overturned in part because there was no clear BLP issue. Armon's well aware of that.  There is even less of an issue now that we know that Hitchens himself (the BLP in question) acknowledged the term that I used ("alcoholic").  In any case, I have agreed not to call him that myself again.  But none of that is relevant to Armon's behavior described above.  His claim that I am still violating BLP on the page is absurd and unsupported.  3 - Armon keeps saying that it is reasonable to demand that everyone be able to assess offline citations -- they can.  I provided full citations and Armon is welcome to get a library card.  If he can't find them in New Zealand, interlibrary loan is an option.  Or he can just ask me to send him copies of the articles.  But none of that is the issue here - the issue is his disruptive editing and his personal attacks against me and his refusal to assume good faith.  Claiming that I must be making up what is written in an article if it isn't online is a gross violation of WP:AGF. csloat 02:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This, OTOH, is an outright misrepresentation, The block was not overturned at all - it was shortened, by a lenient adming who was misled by you into believing this was your first block and that you were not warned first. Other editors who commented on the issue found it problematic that it was administered 2 weeks after the offence - but everyone agreed that it was an egregious BLP violation when made. Isarig 03:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that last response from sloat looks like an admission of WP:POINT. He inserted an undue amount of cites claiming alcoholism into the Hitchens article in order to make the point that it OK for him to rant on about how big a drunk the guy is. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 03:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Isarig: you are wrong about why the block was overturned, and you can read the discussion between admins about it yourself if you are interested. The admins can defend their own actions, but one of them points out that "it was semantics in an off the cuff talk page comment, rather than an outright slur."  We now know that it wasn't even a slur since it is embraced by Hitchens himself.  So no, everyone did not agree "that it was an egregious BLP violation when made" -- in fact, when it was made, not a single soul commented on it.  Armon: that is a bizarre argument.  I did not try to make any point about it being ok for me to rant on anything.  I went and did some further research on a point that was already in the article that Isarig was removing, citing BLP violations that I thought were bogus.  The fact that said research vindicated a particular choice of words is really beside the point.  I have never "ranted on about how big a drunk the guy is" -- I have only made reference to his own statements that he drinks about a fifth of hard liquor a day.  Anyway, this report is about Armon's behavior, not about Hitchens or about BLP, so most of this conversation is somewhat of a side show. csloat 05:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you examine Sloat's contribution history, you will see that he has habitually and unapologetically violated WP:CIVIL. His discussion style is to be dismissive of points raised by those he disagrees with rather than to entertain them and reply in a reasonable way in an effort to come to a neutral consensus. He tends to use disparaging language when discussing the contributions of others. This style tends to cause escalation of disagreements and weakens the Wikipedia community. Sloat needs to clean up his own act before accusing others. His complaints against Armon are frivilous. Elizmr 13:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, Elizmr is incorrect. It is true that I am sometimes testy when provoked, but I also apologize when I feel I have crossed a line.  But that is not the issue here - the issue is Armon's hounding of me based on the incorrect claim that I am lying -- a clear violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA.  What is more, these personal attacks have led to disruptive editing, as with Armon deleting well sourced material simply because it is not online. csloat 19:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, that is probably the first time you have ever apologized. There is a prayer to be said the first time something happens and I'm saying it right now for you, Sloat.  And I appreciate the apology.  However, I could produce many examples of your refusals to apologize, dissmissals, personal attacks, uncivil behavior, etc.  Saying you are just reacting to provacation is a refusal to take responsibility for your own actions.  As far as your complaints against Armon, I do not think they are accurate. You guys are having a content dispute.  If you would just chill out, stop attacking, stop reacting, stop dismissing, listen to what others are saying, discuss, and come to consensus no one would have a problem with you.  This is the way to diffuse the situation rather than bringing these kind of frivioulous complaints to this notice board.  Elizmr 03:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No it is not the first time I have apologized, Elizmr. You know that for a fact.  I have apologized every time I have felt I crossed a line.  The problem is that you want me to apologize every time I disagree with you, and I won't.  Now, again, the issue here is Armon's disruptive editing and personal attacks, not the question of how often I apologize, and not some content dispute.  It is about Armon removing sourced and relevant information purely because it is from the print media, and then claiming that I am a liar and an ass. csloat 06:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ban-Evasion
As many of you are aware of, User:Guardian Tiger, who has been banned by the community Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177, has continued to maintain the original block was unjustified. Now he has continued to ignore the ban and created a new ban-evading sock, User:LionheartX. (self-identified []) It should definitely be blocked on sight. Admin intervention is respectfully requested. Thank you--Certified.Gangsta 03:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nlu, an involved admin, already decided to give LionheartX one more chance, based on his admission of wrongdoing and promise to reform - at the section you initiated on his talk page. Please don't venue shop for admins willing to block against Nlu's wishes. Picaroon 03:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nlu said other admins are not bound by his decision. [] I also think Nlu did not realize he is "community-banned". Please don't accuse me of admin shopping. I'm trying to enforce a community ban. We can't let this be a bad example for future sockpuppeteers.--Certified.Gangsta 03:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, just for the record, that isn't a community ban (unless there's something other than the archive you linked to). Bish indefblocked and asked for review, and it was reviewed by a couple of admins. Community bans must require much more extensive discussion amongst the community. —<font color="#555">bbatsell  <font color="#C46100" size="1">¿? <font color="#2C9191" size="3">✍  03:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Which it appears you are aware of and yet continue to misrepresent the facts. —<font color="#555">bbatsell  <font color="#C46100" size="1">¿? <font color="#2C9191" size="3">✍  03:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Read carefully Dmcdevit explicitly stated the community's patience with me is exhausted.--Certified.Gangsta 03:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh goodness. So one editor pipes a link to the section of the blocking policy related to community bans == the user is community banned?  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  If you wish to pursue an actual community ban, you are free to do so on the community noticeboard.  —<font color="#555">bbatsell  <font color="#C46100" size="1">¿?  <font color="#2C9191" size="3">✍  04:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, so you're implying it's perfectly okay to create more socks to evade indef. blocks. Then what's the point of blocking anyway??--Certified.Gangsta 04:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not once have I said or implied that. I was simply correcting your misstatement that he was community banned.  Two admins now (Ben Aveling and Nlu) have revoked the blocks and given the user in question another opportunity after they deemed unblock requests reasonable.  If you feel that the user in question has exhausted his opportunities and should be community banned, feel free to propose it at WP:CN.  —<font color="#555">bbatsell  <font color="#C46100" size="1">¿?  <font color="#2C9191" size="3">✍  04:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Did anyone say that? We're just here to say that you need to get your terminology right. Banning someone involves a community-wide process, and is a social construct in which a person is forbidden to edit here again under any name. Blocking someone is a technical measure used to prevent editing from an account. The two words are not synonymous. --210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 04:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The blocking admin of one of the socks, Dmcdevit, said it and all parties agree on the spot. Ben Aveling is not an admin. In fact, another admin User:Steel359 commented on Ben's activity on destroyer's talkpage on the edit summary upon protection. "Talk pages are not for chitchatting with banned users, multiple attempts with unblock failed already under other accounts" []--Certified.Gangsta 05:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But, User:Nlu is an admin. Please read the entire ANI threads from beginning to end, and you'll see the only one who supported the ban was Dmcdevit, the proponent. Many other people had opposed the ban. LionheartX 05:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Who? The only one who objected was Ben Aveling (non-admin) and he didn't object in that particular thread either.--Certified.Gangsta 05:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read the whole thread. The particular thread is here. Admin privileges do not confer increased leverage in a dispute. BenAveling clearly objected in that thread. User:Shimeru also objected to a ban in the subsequent threads. LionheartX 06:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't object to the block, actually. I found Ben's argument for giving you another chance reasonable, and support his effort.   If there was at some point a community ban discussion, I wasn't aware of it at the time (and still haven't seen it). In the absence of such a discussion, with regard to the current thread, I find myself agreeing with Nlu's opinion, stated below the section break. Shimeru 04:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to what Certified.Gangsta have said, I am not banned. The block log on my previous account were wrong. There was no strong consensus for a ban per official policy. I am willing to accept the conditions that User:Shimeru stated in the previous ANI threads. I request that Certified.Gangsta stop actively campaigning and venue shopping for admins to have me blocked per civility and harassment policies. I apologize for my previous account-jumping in the past. I want a chance to prove I can contribute positively to wikipedia. Please see the full discussion at User talk:Nlu and User talk:BenAveling.

Here is several threads recently on WP:ANI showing that there isn't strong support for the block or ban per official policy.
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177
 * Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive192
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive207

Thanks, LionheartX 03:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Block or ban? Block log anomaly
The main point of contention here is whether ApocalypticDestroyer's block was merely an indefinite block or an actual community ban. As noted in the block log, the block is labeled a ban. However, there is evidence that a full-fledged discussion to implement a community ban, mandated by WP:BAN in the cases of community bans, never took place. I believe that we should clear up this ambiguous situation once and for all. --210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 06:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think both LionheartX and Certified.Gangsta is reading too much into the language here. As I see it:
 * LionheartX's actions with prior accounts justify ban, but:
 * The situation isn't so bad that he shouldn't get another chance.
 * In other words, unless there is consensus otherwise (although I asked Dmcdevit for his input) I'm inclined to, as I said, give LionheartX one last chance. Any further disruptive behavior on his part (and massive spamming of admins' talk pages, which he did just now, is very close to being disruptive) will be the last straw.  I indefinitely blocked the  account, as it is no longer needed (and the fact that it is no longer needed was used by LionheartX as a reason in arguing that he was not sockpuppeting).  Any further justified complaints about LionheartX's behavior, including spamming, edit warring, sock puppeting, &c., should draw an indefinite block on the account and a lengthy block on the underlying IP.  Obviously, people may not necessarily agree with me, so I'd like to hear other opinions.  --Nlu (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I sincerely believe the block log was a mistake. In the block log, User:Dmcdevit cites the following WP:ANI thread: Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177. In that ANI thread, Dmcdevit clearly says,


 * "Regardless of which is the sock and which the main account, which has been blocked as a sock, and whether he's been banned or just blocked before, these accounts are all the same person, and I've blocked Apocalyptic Destroyer now too, and I will consider him and any and all of his sockpuppets and IPs from now on banned from Wikipedia unless anyone gives me any reason not too. The community's patience with him is exhausted. Dmcdevit·t 08:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"


 * User:BenAveling clearly replies with the following:


 * "I'm looking through Tiger's edit contribution for gross abuse, and I'm not seeing it. He's accused at least one admin of not being neutral, which is certainly uncivil of him but I think the Giano case established that it isn't a hanging offence. He's accused Isberg (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) of being a sock which is uncivil, even if he's right. (He isn't, is he? If he is, I owe him an apology.). He's accused Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) of harassing him and campaigning to have him banned, which is also accurate, and as far as I can see, he's done this complaining in relatively polite terms. He's used a lot of accounts over time, but no one (other than Certified Gangsta, formerly known User:Bonafide hustler) is claiming that he has been using them in parallel. So he may or may not be abusive, but he isn't a sock master. (What sort of self respecting sock puppetier loses the passwords?) I wouldn't be surprised if there's some 3RR violations and POV waring but most of his edits look reasonable, lots of wikilinking and some minor edits. Nothing that wikipedia will colapse for the lack of, but nice to have. I haven't checked every edit, especially from the long dead accounts. No doubt I've missed stuff. Just to set my mind at rest, will someone post some diffs to this gross abuse and harrasment and I will promptly and publically apologise for making this request. Sorry everyone for being difficult. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"


 * As we can all see, BenAveling clearly "gave him a reason not to" in that specific AN/I thread right after Dmcdevit posted that. Also note that the official policy clearly states "Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users.". There is clearly no strong consensus for a ban. In the other two AN/I threads above, User:Shimeru also objected to ban and I respectfully accept the conditions he put forth. Therfore, I clearly was not banned. I respectfully request an admin to change the block logs on my previous accounts to note that it was a mistake and that I was not banned. Thanks.

Please refer to the lengthy discussion on User talk:Nlu, User talk:BenAveling, and these three AN/I threads. Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive207
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive192

Thank you. LionheartX 06:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We are really making a poor example out of this. I am very afraid that future sockpuppets will refer to this case as a way out. As for indef. block vs. ban, it is all semantics. He evade block/ban too many times. He crossed the line, thus a block is necessary. Anyway, I kind of regret I brought up this issue cuz it seems like people are forgiving Lion because they have problems with me. Anyway one last point before I leave, this edit shows a sign of bad-faith and refusal to acknowledge his mistakes. []--Certified.Gangsta 07:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As stated by the above users, a block is different from a ban. A ban involves an exhaustive process with strong consensus. And I'm not sure how that edit shows a "sign of bad-faith and refusal to acknowledge his mistakes". I was asking him to keep the discussion in one place. LionheartX 07:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Route 55 (1969).jpg – User:Route 82
My apologies in advance if there's a better place I should take this.

On March 7, I tagged this image as Replaceable fair use, as all maps by nature are, if they're eligible for fair use at all. The uploader, after bantering back and forth with me on the image talk page, has just removed the tag rather than using Replaceable fair use disputed.

User:Route 82 has also uploaded numerous similar maps. Image:I-695.jpg and Image:Stafford (1969).jpg were both uploaded by him and deleted as replaceable fair use. He then reuploaded identical images at Image:I-695a.jpg and Image:Stafford (1969).jpg, which were quickly redeleted by the same admin as db-repost.

Any help on the issue would be appreciated. -- NORTH talk 00:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right. Nuke the image. Fair use is not a license, it's a defense, and cannot be applied if free replacements can be made. -- Drini 00:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many more like this. I have tagged them with the appropriate templates, with the exception of one that was old enough it needed to be taked to IFD.  Jkelly 01:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. But Jkelly, I think you're reading the date issue incorrectly. To quote WP:CSD:
 * Any image or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a logo tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted at any time. Media that fail any part of the fair use criteria and were uploaded after July 13, 2006 may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader. For media uploaded before July 13, 2006 or tagged with the Replaceable fair use template, the uploader will be given seven days to comply with this policy after being notified.

The way I'm reading that, if it was uploaded after July 13, 2006, the image has 48 hours. If it was uploaded before July 13, 2006, or tagged with the template, it has 7 days. Either way the template still applies, no? -- NORTH talk 02:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. I was thinking of the I3 clause. Jkelly 02:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Common sense would call for faster deletion than that. No reasonable person would claim fair use of a copyrighted map, except in a case where the subject of an article is an individual map itself (but most famous maps are old enough to be public domain, so even that is an unlikely situation). — CharlotteWebb 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is probably not the right forum for my $.02, but since it seems germane: 7 days gives someone other than the uploader time to create a free image based on the fair use one. --Selket Talk 07:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * One famous map that is not public domain, and probably never will be, is mentioned in Michael Hertz Associates. The same is true for its predecessor, used under fair use in . --NE2 09:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ...and how could I forget the Tube map, which doesn't have even a small piece of the actual map that's being talked about. --NE2 09:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
Just as a heads up, I've blocked User:Xsp85 and User:RyuW for sockpuppetry on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, specifically, pushing undiscussed criticism into the article. I've tagged User:Xsp1 as the sockmaster, seeing as it is the oldest account. Yes, I'm aware that Xsp1 didn't edit this article, but the account names are too similar to be coincidence. Shadow1 (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, I had filed an earlier complaint on this person here, but it was archived without action (along with the report on User:Unicorn144 which immediately follows it). RJASE1 Talk  01:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a few more users and IPs to the list of suspected socks. The user doesn't just edit Islam-related articles - he also edits some articles on educational facilities and finance. Andjam 02:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In Washington Mutual, User:Xsp85, User:Xsp1 and User:Xsp66 have edited. User talk:24.188.142.75 was edited by Xsp1, who in turn has edited User:Xsp85.

User:24.188.132.155 has worked on Talk:WAMU (also worked on by Xsp1), M. Shahid Alam (also worked on by User:Xsp3), Baruch College (worked on by Xsp1, User:Xsp65, and 24.188.142.75), Banking in the United States (worked on by 24.188.142.75), Salehuddin Ahmed (also edited by Xsp3) and Washington Mutual (see above)

User:24.188.134.192 has worked on Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali (along with Xsp85, and User:RyuW has worked on the article itself) Bank of America (no other socks have to my knowledge, though), Washington Mutual (see above) and Talk:Battle of Thermopylae (along with Xsp85).

There is also a User:Xsp99, but it hasn't made any contributions (as far as I can tell). Andjam 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

IPs using Wikipedia as a chatroom
After a new account created the nonsense article Plake, various IPs are essentially using as a chatroom - see. Reporting here because copying all the IP addresses at AIV would take too long. Natalie 03:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Article deleted by another admin. No other outstanding recent edits by any of the IPs who contributed. -- Gogo Dodo 05:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet, ON WHEELS?
, created today, in his first edit places a sockpuppet tag on the userpage of User:HIGHSPEEDWILLYONWHEELS:. He then goes on to file Suspected sock puppets/Pschemp, accusing User:Giftednumber10 of being Pschemp's sock puppet. HIGHSPEEDWILLYONWHEELS was blocked in Dec 2005, so it's a bit odd that Hoijho kensig decided to tag him...could someone investigate, please? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I went out on a limb and blocked that user indefinitely. Weird... Grand  master  ka  04:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin attention requested
Can an admin or two take a look at the above? I don't feel like the participants going back and forth is producing any new information at this point. Thanks. csloat 06:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation, attack, clueless, nasty... what?
It's late for me, and I'm not going to touch this. Please see this which drew my attention. User:My_pass_is_google's talk page is a rip-off of User:Academic Challenger's user page. I don't know what to make of it, but I'm pretty sure a large mallet is a good tool for this square peg. Shenme 06:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Already blocked indef, I replaced his user page and talk page with indefblock. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 06:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Goshuckurself
The name seems kind of suspect, and the second contribution doesn't make this look like a constructive editor. Username block appropriate? (I'm not an admin.) Zetawoof(&zeta;) 07:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He's blocked indef by Ryulong. Max S em 07:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Faranbazu (and possible sock puppetry)
In Talk:Reza Shah, this user attacks those who disagree with his/her viewpoint. For example, I had questioned the credibility of his/her claims (after pointing out the given sources don't support the claims, I had called it an example of Original Research ) and my comment was labeled as "a clear POV by the monarchist camp. Your distortion of historical facts is sickening.". Also this was his/her answer for User:Shervink. Considering the edits by 24.81.87.152, 140.80.199.91, and usernames User:Faranbazu, and User:Artaxerex, it seems that this user has used 2 usernames for editwarring over the page Reza Shah. Jahangard 08:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And you called his position a "deliberate distortion". Which could possibly explain the escalation in language.Wjhonson 08:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't exactly call it "a deliberate distortion". I said "an example of WP:OR, if not a deliberate distortion". Anyway, how about his/her answer for User:Shervink ? and how about using 2 usernames for editwarring over one page? Should I wait for 3RR violation and then ask the checkusers? Jahangard 09:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Unreasonable deletion of info
User Aivazovsky has been reverting and deleting information on Azeri-related articles either labelling them as vandalism or making references to an arbitration process on the Armenian-Azeri edit wars, which according to him prevents users from creating or editing "sensitive" (?) articles whatsoever. Without being able to provide a single source, he removes chunks of neutrally-sourced information accusing others of "wanting to provoke an edit war." In the article Azeris in Armenia he deleted information accompanied by three sources  He also refuses to provide explanations for the deleting of info (which I had to restore) on Erivan khanate:  Another example of unexplained deletion, March Days:. Parishan 08:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I too, during recent changes patrol, have had cause to question Aivazovsky's disruptive edits and reversions, especially his edit summaries stating that he is reverting vandalism when all he is doing is removing edits he disagrees with. LittleOldMe 11:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * All his edits are fine, I can read his mind but I'm not going to bother arguing here he did violate his parole on one of the articles though. Artaxiad 23:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Both Aivazovsky and Artaxiad were involved in coordinated revert warring at Khachkar_destruction. The latter recently gets involved in WP:Stalk/WP:Harassment as well, without understanding that attempts to reveal or false attribute identity of contributor are disruptive and counter to above indicated policies. Atabek 12:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Excessive blocking
See User_talk:Superc63 -- User was blocked indefinitely, which seems extreme for a first time block, especially over a topic that has some contention in its support. Autocracy 05:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really look like this user is here to write encyclopedia. And how did complete n00b learned about ANI? Max S em


 * I had a nice welcome, it's still on my talk page. It contains a bunch of information useful for new editors.  It takes two clicks to get from that text to ANI. DanBeale 11:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of blocking...
I have blocked Autocracy for 48 hours for violating WP:POINT in sending International Talk Like a Pirate Day to AfD while putting the article that Superc63 was discussing up for DRV. I invite others to review my block of this individual.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Artaxiad violating WP:Harassment
Edits (being) oversighted, user responsible blocked indefinitely. Kirill Lokshin 13:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to report a case of harassment by User:Artaxiad. He has been following my edits, to identify myself with certain other physical identity without any proofs at hand. My creation and editing of Huseyn Javid, a poet who lived in early 20th century, served as a faulty ground for User:Artaxiad to claim my identity based on false name associations and some information he found on Internet about a certain individual in California. His first case of intimidation was here. User:Artaxiad further pursued harassment, trying to associate again User:Atabek with that individual in California and use an article on Internet as a basis for claiming that someone else as friend of another Wikipedia contributor User:AdilBaguirov right here. Using this invented association User:Artaxiad again trying to prove that I am friends with User:AdilBaguirov. I will not add extra evidence on User:Artaxiad following my edits to pursue revert warring, all of this evidence is well summarized at, ,. I am just wondering when negligence of disruptive behavior of this user is going to end. While being an experienced user, he walks away free with confirmed sockpuppets, gets involved in heavy revert warring, which is presented in ArbCom case , clear attempt to remove all of the images related to a certain country admitted here , accusing others of "lying" , and now clear case of harassment and stalking. How long this is going to go on? Atabek 12:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Edits (being) oversighted, user responsible blocked indefinitely. In the future, please report such issues directly to the Oversight list. Kirill Lokshin 13:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for addressing this serious concern timely. Atabek 14:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Carla Martin and
Schmetterling has been edit warring at Carla Martin for a few weeks now. This user was blocked for violating 3RR...came back and immediately violated it again. I have evidence via email that Schmetterling is Carla Martin herself. The emails are sent from "Candy Martino", a very obvious cover name. How do I handle this? I'm an admin but this isn't something I've handled before. The email from "Candy" stated "What is my recourse-short of filing a lawsuit?". Since this lady is a lawyer, this is a real possibility. She has violated WP:NLT and WP:AUTO for certain. At the moment, she is serving a 48H block for the 3RR. How do I handle this? Do I make it an indefinite block? Do I contact Jimbo? I'm hesistant to publish the email on the site because I'm against that for the most part. Help! --WoohookittyWoohoo! 15:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I emailed one of TPTB on it. If there is anything else people think I can do, say so. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 16:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing concern
There appears to be canvassing going on to affect the consensus at Talk:×××HOLiC. I'm not sure how to address this properly, could I get a neutral hand? Kyaa the Catlord 17:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Canvassing? Where?   x42bn6  Talk 17:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Links:   Kyaa the Catlord 17:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I put a canvassing notification (not a warning) on the talk page - because it is not widespread. That said, I have commented on the issue, too.   x42bn6  Talk 17:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did not know what the procedure is on this, the WP:CANVASS page doesn't seem to give any guidelines on how to deal with it. Kyaa the Catlord 17:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there are warning templates but then again, they don't have to have red stop signs to be warnings. I'll be watching that page, by the way.   x42bn6  Talk 18:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Shivaji and Aurangzeb
I'm reporting edit-warring going on at Shivaji and Aurangzeb, due to which I've semi-protected these articles. There were a bunch of single-purpose edit-warring accounts and socks that I've blocked as well. I request other admins to have a look at these cases and review my actions and assessment. Rama's arrow 18:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Big Boss 0
has been frustrating the hell out of myself and User:The Hybrid for quite some time now. That resulted in a 48 hour block on February 19 by me. (See relevant threads here and here).

Since the block, he's continued to be disruptive. He keeps taunting Ockenbock (a blocked user who continues to come back to troll my user talk page). But now, recently, there's some crazy things he's saying that really scary and annoying for me: see this and this. He's threatening to stalk me, basically, and that scares me. See also this thread at The Hybrid's talk page where he explains his stalking and such.

And there's also just odd actions like this conversation and this related diff. He's trying to run some wrestling fanboy thing on here and thinks he can control all the other fanboy actions on Wikipedia.

Can another admin please look at this? I think I'm too involved to make a proper ruling on this, but something needs to be done. Thanks, Metros232 01:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There's also this diff. It seems that Nightmare81 might be the person he claims is doing all the research on me and everything.  "I also wish to have a report of all of the data you have gathered" and "I didn't break policy for no reason.  This will be big on both of our parts" kind of bother me.  Metros232 03:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As an outside observer, there's either some real weird non-WP related nonsense going on (it looks like there's a few folks doing an RP account thing on here), or there is a real possible issue. MSJapan 04:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've figured it out, I think. Remember, we are dealing with a young teen here, probably around 13, and a wrestling fan. Now, I believe that he is trying to start a faction within Wikipedia under the banner of the nWo. The new World order, or nWo, was a professional wrestling faction within World Championship Wrestling that was incredibly large, and in the storyline they had a real chance of conquering WCW. I believe that he is trying to start an nWo on Wikipedia, with him as the leader. In the nWo, the leader was almost always a world champion, and he calls himself "The Real People's Champion." I believe that his goal is to gain control over a certain area of Wikipedia, and he views Metros232 as a threat to this goal. Metros, being an admin, has the power to squash his movement before it starts with his power to block people, though of course we know that it would take some serious stuff for him to start running around handing out indef ACB blocks to people.

When he first got here I explained to him how things work, and he asked me many questions about how to most efficiently damage Wikipedia. I suspected him of having ulterior motives, but he was being a vandal fighter, and he does seem rather young, so I assumed good faith and answered his questions assuming that he was simply being overzealous due to his curiosity like when a young boy learns about explosions in chemistry class.

However, it now appears that he is trying to start a movement in Wikipedia for whatever reason. I believe that his provocation of Ockenbock is an attempt to distract both me and Metros from what he is doing. I believe that he is making preparations to start his own Wikipedia nWo, and he wants both editors and vandals (nWo Wolfpac and nWo Hollywood) to join him. He wants to understand the motives of vandals, and I believe that his motive behind this is to get them to join him, which is why he has maintained a presence on Uncyclopedia after tracking down Ockenbock. Meanwhile, he is trying to recruit actual editors over here. What he thinks he will gain by starting a Wikipedia nWo is anyone's guess, but we are dealing with a rather young person here, so logic isn't necessarily a part of this.

This is my theory, but since I am leaving for vacation tomorrow I won't be here to see how this thing turns out. Either way, he is violating policies knowingly and unapologetically, so something needs to happen. Peace, -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  04:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Close but no cigar. First of all I am older than 13. And as far as conquoring wikipedia goes it was never my intention. My goal was to reagin control of PDL. On January 3rd PDL fell into the hands of someone who was trying to destroy it all together. They manages to get their hands on all 3 of our titles. All they would have had to done was get their hands on our contracts and PDL would be finished. We decided to stop this at any cost. On the 9th of January the New World Organization was born to counter this threat. From then on there were two factions within PDL those on the Pontiac League board and the New World Organization. On February 2nd I was able to recaputure the LC Championship due to the fact that since I held the PDL Championship for over a year in one reign I can exercise a title match clause anytime I want. In order to stop them from exercising their rematch clauses we decided to rename it the NWO Championship. Every PDL member has 2 rematch clauses in their contract. I had still retained my right to rename titles and with it the rematch clauses they had would be useless. You cannot challenge for what doesn't exist. Finally on March 1st I won the Pontiac Hardcore Championship unifying it with the NWO Championship. With that title I renamed it the PDL Traditional Championship so that I could reinstate it at a later date. The next day I was able to regain control of the PDL Championship when the current holder failed to defend the title when he was supposed to so I was able to vacate it even though I lost the authority to in January he violated contract and that allowed me to vacate the title. The very next day I rematched the current PDL faction for their contracts and the PDL title because the former champion still had his rematch clauses. In the end a PDL Member won it but immediately changed sides unexpectedaly. Not even I saw it coming. Apparently he made a deal with Exxod 6. With that I was able to terminate their membership and regain control of my duelist league. Wikipedia was a way to draw attention away from what we were planning. They were keeping a cloes eye on me and I came up with the ultimate way to distract them. And shortly before this all happened I met Nightmare 81 in person. I agreed to get Ockenbock's attention to distract them even further and so that Nightmare 81 could get his data. I would also be getting something very valuable out of all of this. He needed a vandal for his project. So I looked for one and found Ockenbock by accident. So I figured why not. I needed him because he would cause so much trouble on my end that they couldn't find out what we were really planning with the New World Organization. Mutual gain on my and Nightmare 81's. I attacked Ockenbock to gain his full attention and try to completely take it away completely from Metros232. It partially worked and he attacked me. But he still kept attacking Metros. Nightmare has been searching throught all of Ockenbocks sockpuppets and put an I.A. to watch Metros232's talk page. It is completely unable to do anything but watch. My re-taking over was successful and I shall relinquish my PDL authority soon. Everything on my end is done. Now we must wait on him. It should be interesting to look at what he found out. I know I can't wait to see. Big Boss 0 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not some place for you to play out your little Pokemón fantasies and leagues out on here or whatever the heck you're rambling about. If you continue to be disruptive and use Wikipedia to further your own factions and groups, you will be blocked.  Metros232 23:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Persistent retaliatory behavior by okkar
Per the talk page at Talk:Tin Oo, user User:Okkar is having trouble understanding the Attribution policy ("Read the source... pay attention when you read the article, it is historical fact, you should take a visit to Defense Museum in Yangon... have you ever been there?"). No one can make a change to one of his poor edits without having their own contributions attacked. When the fact tags he places are addressed (see Tin Tun, Ye Htoon, and Scouting in Burma), he removes them and places the fact tags once again, it is repetitive disruptive activity and should be stopped. We at WikiProject Myanmar (Burma) have been speaking with this user since early January about Wikipedia-appropriate work with others, rather than against others, and it has fallen on deaf ears. We need fresh voices in this. Chris 18:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okkar has also made personal attacks on other editors accusing them of bias and favoring Burmese opposition pro-democracy groups. This is one on Hintha: ("Here we go, everytime the likes of you get caught redhanded, you scream personal attack, yet you expect to get away with the misdeed by trying to overcloud the issue at hand with personal attack claims. It is truely amazing to see this form of mentality in Wikipedia. Not only people cheat, lie and do all kinds of misdeeds, they have the audicity to claim to be victim. No wonder there are soo many sorry stories about Burmese refugees, this is just one fine example of the propaganda tactics of opposition groups - hit first then pretend to be victim .. amazing, truly amazing!! Okkar 02:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)") From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Myanmar


 * Here is another comment made by Okkar: ("Finally, the common sense has prevailed and triumphed over destructive mindset of opposition groups and their minions who are using this project as a political propaganda tool. It is a victory over those who seek out to degrade our country by insisting to use the old colonial name of the country as the name of the project and the axe handles who colluded with foreigners with mob mentality to remove anyone who don’t support or share their politically biased views from this project by any means necessary, even if it means they have to cheat or lied. Okkar 22:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)") From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Myanmar_%28Burma%29#Political_Agendas


 * In both quotes, Okkar is neither assuming good faith nor is he avoiding personal attacks on other editors. This kind of behavior and language is clearly counter to Wikipedia's standards. I've not witnessed any apology by Okar for this behavior. His pattern seems to be to cease temporarily this kind of behavior then start up again later. Based on this constant bad behavior, I raise the question of whether he should be banned from editing Wikipedia. SimonBillenness 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Surrender of Montreal (1760)
Hi, We have a bit of a revert-war going on over here, with myself unblanking the page and one or 2 other editors blanking and redirecing the page. details of the dispute are on the talk page, so I won't get into them here. I'd just like to request that the stub be un-blanked/un-redirected and if possible, locked until an aggreement or outcome can be reached one way or another. Thanks! Mike McGregor (Can) 20:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Lucas
—Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 10:43Z 

Lads, you might want to have a look at the Lucas page. There's a bit of a nasty edit war going there. Not sure why the 2 users are on about but the last comment is a bit nasty to say the least... Saebhiar Adishatz 15:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The last several edits are from a school ID. It looks like one student is bullying or teasing by making allegations using another student's real name, and the named student has gotten upset. I've blocked the school for 24 hours and you might drop an e-mail to Oversight to get the last few edits removed. I'm also watchlisting the Lucas page. Newyorkbrad 15:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. Thanks. Saebhiar Adishatz 15:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This may seem excessive to some, but it might be a good idea to send an email to the school. The last edit summary that's currently in the history from that IP is really nasty and the proper authorities may want to be aware of this situation. Natalie 21:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted the page and restored some of the earlier edits. The page was also protected by me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Pancasila (personal attacks)
was blocked in December for one week for personal attacks against User:John Hyams and others. Today he/she resumed personal attacks against User:John Hyams. —Psychonaut 21:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That goes here. // Decaimiento  Poético  23:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. It ought to have gone at WP:PAIN but that doesn't exist any more, so I'm posting it here.  —Psychonaut 01:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Questionable speedy deletion nominations
—Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 10:42Z 

I have just written the biography of Sir Otho Prior-Palmer, who served for 19 years as Member of Parliament for Worthing in the United Kingdom. Per Notability guidelines, "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office" are considered notable. However, the article has been repeatedly tagged for speedy deletion by Patricknoddy. I have taken this matter up on his talk page but he has not explained to me his reasoning, nor has he taken up the invitation to nominate the article at Articles for deletion. I notice several other complaints from users that he has nominated articles for speedy deletion inappropriately. Sam Blacketer 23:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This thread is being handled on AN. Let's avoid cross-posting. Part Deux 23:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Patricknoddy went there to complain that I had removed his speedy deletion tags, although it seemed to me that this was the most appropriate forum based on the rubric at the top of the page. I note that Freakofnurture has now removed some of the tags Patricknoddy has placed, and that Zscout370 has blocked him from editing with a note that "when you stop using the tool, come and email me and I will lift your block". Sam Blacketer 23:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was on the verge of issuing him a 24-hour block when I noticed he had already been blocked indefinitely. I have no objection at this time. — freak([ talk])</tt> 01:58, Mar. 10, 2007 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that he's not responding to valid concerns with his taggings. The most important aspect of new pages patrolling is to guide new users into contributing constructively. Refusal to discuss a tag defeats the whole purpose. <b style="color:CornflowerBlue;">Leebo</b> <sup style="color:#B22222;">T / C  02:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Request deletion of User:Dragoonmac/List_of_Shock_Sites
—Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 10:41Z 

The user has been absent for a long time, but the page contains direct links to numerous sites on Wikipedia's blacklist, including tubgirl.com. I can't save the page with a speedy or prod notice because it contains so many blacklisted site links. RJASE1 Talk  02:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A helpful admin has deleted the page - this issue can be closed, thanks. RJASE1 Talk  03:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Nikkul
has used a series of sockpuppets (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nikkul) to influence the outcome of discussions on the Talk:India page. He has denied ever using socks but today's checkuser results have confirmed the same. He has also interpreted consensus to make edits to the page without the discussion ending leading to edit wars and the page being locked. Since I'm involved in the dispute, I leave it to the community to decide his fate. (PS he has also deleted warnings on this talk page) =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The relevant discussion is primarily at Talk:India. Please take it into consideration here.  The Behnam 05:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Dpotop blocked without warning or explanation
User:Dpotop was blocked by User:Blnguyen for a time period of 48-hours. The reason given on the blockpage is this:

(anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (NPA Khoikhoi -> coicoi (Romanian for testicles))

There are a few problems with that reasoning.

Calling Khoikhoi coicoi is perfectly understandable for a Romanian speaker since: 1. letter K is very rare in Romanian and 2. Romanian orthography is phonetic. Hence, the most immediate and spontaneous way of writing Khoikhoi in Romanian is coicoi. It’s but a spontaneous reaction of a Romanian person transliterating the name of Khoikhoi. Nothing more than that. Implying bad faith or insulting intentions is simply absurd. This is true. If I wanted to write the name Khoikhoi in Romanian, it would be written as "coicoi."
 * 1) Coicoi, in Romanian, does not mean testicles. Coaie, in slang language, means testicles and some may say also coi.
 * 2) Dpotop called Khoikhoi for coicoi on March 7; and about 24 hours later, he was blocked for 48 hours.
 * 3) Dahn confronted Dpotop about calling Khoikhoi for coicoi, in which Dpotop answered by saying this:

4. Dpotop was not warned by any admin, for any violation; he was not notified that he was blocked; and nor was he told where he could appeal against his block. I think the block is unfair and that Dpotop should be unblocked on grounds that there is no proof of him intending to use the alternative spelling as a way to insult Khoikhoi. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I know events where people have been called worse and didn't get blocked for personal attacks. I guess that's life :-( --Domitius 18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it should have any bearing on the decision, and I don't ultimately claim that it should (that is a decision for admins to take). I will however point out that the "explanation" furnished above by Anittas is ridiculous. "Coi" means "a testicle", "coaie" means "testicles", pure and simple. In my view, as I have stated before, Dpotop used it on purpose, as a derogatory manipulation of Khoikhoi's user name. I also find the theory about k being uncommon in Romanian to be absurd - it is by no means that uncommon (if one is looking for it, one will find it easily), and Dpotop wrote the rest of his message in English, which has a lot of ks (he did not have trouble finding them, apparently). "Spontaneity" is out of the question (not to get tangled up in semantics, but "kh" never turns into "c" in Romanian, and I am yet to see a person that would find spelling with a c "easier" than spelling with a k in Romanian). That is what I have to say. Dahn 19:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it ridiculous? We agree that coi/coaie means testicle/s. The letter K is indeed uncommon in Romanian. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In a quick read, I see your point. However cross cultural slurs/insults about alternate spellings & pronunciations of usernames have come up before (can't begin to find diffs, but I definitely remember it happening)  Sometimes its a misunderstanding, sometimes its not.  I've alerted User:Blnguyen to this discussion on his talk page.  Cheers Dina 19:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I met User:Blnguyen on the DYK page and I recall her/him as an excellent contributor. I am afraid that now s/he really committed a big mistake in blocking  User:Dpotop for that “Khoikhoi = coicoi” story. As a native Romanian speaker I can say that you need a huge portion imagination to construct a case out of this Romanian transliteration. Knowing User:Blnguyen as a fair person, I think that all was but a misunderstanding. As I said, you cannot possibly accuse a Romanian person of bad faith or insulting intentions when transliterating “Khoikhoi” to “coicoi”, since it’s the most obvious and spontaneous way of writing down  “Khoikhoi” in a phonetic way. Besides, “coi” – meaning testicle in Romanian – is by no means used as an insulting word. A Romanian called “coi” would be rather surprised than insulted. Moreover, “coi” is a particle of many Romanian words like “Ciocoi”, Băicoi”, “Coif”, “Coir”, so that there is no concern for Romanian speakers to avoid words containing “coi”. Besides, what Dahn argues reads like weird speculations aimed at harming Dpotop. I wonder where so much hate on Dpotop comes from. I think that there are strong reasons to unblock User:Dpotop. --Vintilă Barbu 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to undue the block without hearing from User:Blnguyen, since 48 hours is not excessive for a personal attack. In context, I can see the argument that this was not meant as it was interpreted. Although I would suggest that mispelling of usernames in arguments can often be seen as dismissive and my read of the diff is sort of like that. Sort of like someone saying about me "well Deena thinks so, so whatever". It's a bit rude, and the argument seemed to be a bit heated at the time. I have alerted User:Khoikhoi to the existence of this discussion, since his/her feelings about the alleged insult seem relevant. To be frank: I'm not going to unblock without discussion with the two admins involved, and it may be longer than 48 hours until they respond. My apologies if this is all a misunderstanding. Cheers. Dina 21:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I endorse the block - this user and a couple of others were basically attacking Khoikhoi and badgering another user about something on the Romanian Wikipedia. Appears more like trolling than anything else. Rama's arrow  01:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen some users write messages to others in their native languages/scripts here - the bottomline is this was obviously a bad-faith ref to Khoikhoi and nobody can use translation as an excuse about it. This is the ENGLISH Wikipedia where you're not supposed to use any other language, especially under such circumstances. Do you seriously expect others to be able to translate Romanian, Bengali, Arabic and all other languages under the sun in order to check for personal attacks? Rama's arrow  01:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Without weighing in on the matter initially under discussion here, I do want to weigh in on "not supposed to use any other language": it is perfectly reasonable for users to communicate with one another in languages in which they are comfortable. There are quite a few users who routinely address me in either Romanian or Spanish, because it is easier for them and generally no problem for me. I think that's more than fine. On at least two occasions, the comments in question have been blatant (and obscene) personal attacks, and I've reported them as such. - Jmabel | Talk 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In such a situation I would seek clarification, or at the very least start with a warning. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No it is not reasonable exactly becoz of such a situation - the English Wikipedia is the most diverse of its kind. What will happen if editors here, from so many different countries just start using their local languages for their interactions? I would consider it a tremendous discourtesy to those who don't speak Indian languages if Indian editors began conducting dialogue and business in Indian languages. Everybody is free to participate and all dialogues are transparent and open here - this can't be enforced w/o a generally strict usage of English only. Who will be able to keep track of the personal attacks, incivility, etc. stuff going on? As an administrator, I find the prospect terribly challenging - I've already seen 3 cases of insulting comments/insinuations being made in Bengali, Hindi and Urdu. Were it not for my background or for the presence of some other admins who do know that particular language, who's to say which version of the translation would be accurate? Would an Australian admin be able to detect the slur? English is the thread that binds us here - all practical interaction must be conducted in English and very rarely (I regard the exchange of greetings, pleasantries to be ok) should other languages be used. It is not fair to other users and certainly difficult to enforce WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Right now the unity given by English allows a Vietnamese-Australian admin (Blnguyen) to block a Romanian editor for a personal attack. And I'm a terrestrial of martian origin (lol) lecturing on how on the English Wikipedia, only English should be used. While it is not reasonable to expect everyone to be anglophiles, this being the English Wikipedia must compell the Romanian editors in question to not use Romanian phrases in such public discussions, at the very least. Rama's arrow  03:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We are allowed to write in Romanian, but that's beside the point, because the user didn't write in Romanian. He merely wrote the name as it would be written in Romanian and that can't be against the rules. As for trolling and personal attacks, as you claim to have seen:--I guess you can always provide examples, but I don't see this incident as a such example. Everything is based on assumption which Dahl started. --Thus Spake Anittas 04:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Those who are ready to take this semantical explanation for granted may be interested to see what two Romanian-speaking editors have argued on the notice board: see this (and follow the links provided in the latter of the two posts). Dahn 13:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Make that three posts. I want to clarify this again here: I did not call for the block, did not endorse it, and was not even aware of it until someone advertised it on the notice board. But to pretend that the words used were "not insults" is simply absurd. Dahn 13:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be interested in reading an earlier attempt to interpret the spelling of Khoikhoi as an insult. Due to the phonetic identity between the particle “Khoi” and the Romanian word “coi” (vernacular for “testicle”) it is very easy to accuse a Romanian person of having meant “testicle” when s/he writes Khoi or coicoi. Anyway, these accusations break the very basic WP principle of WP:AGF. --Vintilă Barbu 08:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The policy of assume good faith works hand in hand with common sense. It is ludicrous to argue that "Coicoi" was just a "Romanian transliteration" or a "different spelling". Names are names, and since Romanian uses the Latin alphabet, there is absolutely no need for changing names, particularly when you get words like "coi", which are insulting. If Dpotop genuinely wrote "Coicoi" because he wanted to use Romanian spelling, whatever that may mean, then he at least should've realised, upon reading what he wrote, that Coicoi is insulting, and removed it on that grounds. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 13:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rama's essential point -- non-english should be avoided, at the very least, because it can certainly give the impression to someone that they were being talked about, or mocked. I've had that happen to me in real life as well, and it's unsettling, particularly when you can't be sure.  But I am not certain that discouraging the use of foreign languages really applies here, as "KhoiKhoi" is not english and, apparently "coicoi" is not Romanian.  It's necessary to trust native Romanian speakers as to whether or not this could be interpreted as a slur.  Such things are usually subtle, in all languages. Some good faith seems necessary.  I do think that in the case of a personal attack block, the case just generally be very clear cut.  However, I expect the user in question, whether his intention was to insult or not, will be much more careful in the future and that can only be a good thing. Dina 13:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It does appear, from Dahn's diffs above, that three native Romanian speakers (including at least one who does not agree with the block) say that this is clearly a slur of some kind. However, no one seems to be saying that it's a really terrible, horrible insult. So I essentially endorse the block, however it should have been handled properly.  The user should have been warned, and the block time should have much shorter. Dina 14:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I firmly persist that “coicoi” is no insult. At worst I view it as a quite tasteless jest transliteration. You don't block someone for 48 hours just for that. Nevertheless User:Dpotop did break the general courtesy norm of never altering names. (You never know what can happen: in France there is a name spelled “Zabé”, while “zabe” means cock. I may doubt that a Mrs. or Mr. Zabé would become excessively appreciative when someone drops that accent). Admittedly User:Dpotop was quite inconsiderate altering Khoikhoi into whatever else. What I am criticising, is the automatically inferring of bad faith from a name altering, be it one of dubious taste. We can proudly say that assuming bad faith has worked flawless this time. --Vintilă Barbu 16:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's not play games here. If it were me who wrote 'coicoi', I would have play innocent who didnt know what he is doing. But Dpotop knew only too well the meaning of the word he was writing. `'mikka 22:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppinion of User:Dpotop. Since my block is now over, I think it's time you don't just talk about me, but also hear my position: Thanks for listening, Dpotop 10:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) If User:Khoikhoi feels he was the object of a personal attack, then I address him my apologies. After all, personal attacks are forbidden because they make their object feel bad or reduced in some way. However, I still have to see User:Khoikhoi formulate a complaint.
 * 2) Believe me or not, I did not intend to make User:Khoikhoi feel bad. I do agree that the innocence of my (unique) name-change "Coicoi" can be disputed. Actually, I don't really recall why I did it: The subject of the incriminated post, which took place on the talk page of User:Dahn, was the article  Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi, where User:Dahn intervened as a proxy for User:Khoikhoi, making blind reverts. My objective was just to emphasize the abnormality represented by these editing practices where users blindly support each other.
 * 3) Frankly, I belive that what I see now as a mild fault (but fault indeed, regardless of my intentions) from my part is only now becoming a huge insult to User:Khoikhoi through all the fuss initiated around it by User:Dahn in a discussion where he used this argument (and many more) in order to deviate the discussion from its subject (perceived vandalism by User:Khoikhoi, who made controversial edits on ro.wikipedia, and then pretended they were not made by him). For this whole "testicle" propaganda I do apologize to User:Khokhoi, although it was never my intention, nor of my making.
 * 4) Coming now to the actual blocking, I do feel it was unjust on both procedure and duration. First of all, it was not an obvious personal attack. The only person accusing me was User:Dahn, in the middle of a heated discussion where he was opposed by everyone else (including confirmed editors). Aside from a 2-line accusation in the middle of a huge technical discussion, there was no appeal to an administrator, and, most important, User:Khoikhoi did not formulate any complaint (while he was editing other articles and was informed of the discussion).
 * 5) I can only presume that User:Dahn demanded my block through unpublic means (mail) to admin User:Blnguyen. I can easily believe this, because User:Blnguyen is also the administrator that overturned without any obvious cause or explanation the last 3RR block of User:Dahn after only 2 hours.
 * 6) So frankly, I cannot help but feel here cartel-like editing and administration practices (between User:Dahn, User:Khoikhoi, and User:Blnguyen, to be precise) where decision-making does not obey wikipedia rules (such as 3RR) and opponents are punished at sight with the harshest punishments available regardless of their arguments, and where the least critique or inquiry is diverted through long diatribes on irrelevant subjects.

Edits oversighted, user responsible blocked indefinitedly. Kirill Lokshin 12:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC) One of our more prolific contributors has left Wikipedia because his personal information was revealed by the above named editor. Nobleeagle's information was revealed on his user page, but it was later deleted by an intervening administrator. Nobleeagle requested an indefinite block over his account on Nlu's talk page, and the administrator complied. Later, this editor harassed another editor - User:Demonblade by revealing his real life identity. Demonblade later requested Nlu to block his account indefinitely -. The diffs should be immediately deleted, in my opinion, and appropriate preventive action should be taken against Damareinu, to arrest the deletrious affect his presence is having on Wikipedia. ⋆Zamkudi⋆ (talk) ⋆ 10:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Policies to refer: Privacy policy and Harrassment. There is discussion among other editors on the Noticeboard for India-related discussions - . ⋆Zamkudi⋆ (talk) ⋆ 10:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Edits oversighted, user responsible blocked indefinitedly. Kirill Lokshin 12:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for what you're doing guys. This guy has been a major pain in the ass. Can admins see registered user's IP? I can make sure he never goes on wikipedia again, or go on the internet for that matter. Lets see him go on the internet with all his ports jammed shut. I appreciate what you're doing here. Damareinu obviously knows Nobleeagle personally and seems very much like one of those reject of evolution, you know, like dodos and homo ingrown-penis-apiens.

Anyway, loving sentiments aside. thanks for blocking him. Happy Editing 124.168.129.14 11:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

DiNovo redux and, more
Our anon APNIC friend is back for more. Their latest tactic pertaining to DiNovo is to insert "Cheri DiNovo is a coke-whore" into Drugs and prostitution; they also recreated Talk:Cheri DiNovo/Comments again.

In a particularly astonishing bit of "what could possibly happen next?", however, they've also taken up a new target: Jonah Goldberg, where they've repeatedly and persistently inserted the unverifiable claim that Goldberg's biological father is Lyndon B. Johnson...and, naturally, the inevitable assertions on the talk page that any editor who reverts their changes is an "attack queer". The claim about Jonah's paternity was also inserted into Lucianne Goldberg, from which it wasn't reverted — until I caught it just a few minutes ago, the claim had been left in the article for four full days. Clearly it needs a few people to add it to their watchlists ASAP.

I mention this because, as some of you may recall, the whole DiNovo thing began in November of last year. The fact that it's still going on four months later is not an encouraging sign that any of this foolishness is going to end anytime soon.

I'd also be intrigued to hear any ideas about what kind of person could possibly be simultaneously opposed to both Cheri DiNovo and Jonah Goldberg, since about all I can come up with is "ideologically confused". Bearcat 08:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP concerns on Stacy Schiff
If everyone disagrees with me, that's fine with me. But, should Ms. Schiff's birthday be included on her article or not? Per WP:BLP, would she be considered "marginally notable" so as not to include her birthday? or is she notable enough to include it? I also object to others characterizing my edits as vandalism, but have greater concerns about getting this right on her article. Please advise in on the article Talk:Stacy_Schiff. --Aude (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it disparaging to suggest that a Pulitzer Prize winner is only "marginally notable". If anything the article is under-developed. Such basic information as that should only be withheld if it is unknown or disputed. We've got articles about local newspeople, even weathermen, with twice as much content as this one. — CharlotteWebb 18:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If her exact birthday is widely known and available to the public, keep it in. Otherwise, remove it per WP:BLP. Since the issue is one of information research, this noticeboard's involvement in this incident is resolve. -- Jreferee 18:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin help needed on User RfC please
deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother" stating "This is much older than 48 hours with the certification still woefully inadequate, as I warned the participants several days ago, and Justanother has requested deletion. -- Jreferee 18:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Would a previously uninvolved admin please help me out by taking a look at the current RfC on me brought by User:Anynobody, Requests for comment/Justanother, and please consider cancelling it as not meeting the minimum requirement of two good faith efforts to resolve the dispute between Anynobody and myself. User:Smeelgova is listed as the 2nd party to attempt to resolve the dispute but he made no good faith effort to do so. User:Bishonen was advising Anynobody and Smee on the RfC before it went live and she strongly recommended that they do not file the RfC without further good faith efforts at resolution but that advice was ignored and Anynobody posted the RfC anyway. I welcome a neutral 3rd-party to help settle any dispute between Anynobody and myself. I am sure that they will find that I am very easy to work with. Thank you for considering my request. --Justanother 03:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Sheesh. I'm not surprised nobody uninvolved has chosen to research this, when the warring parties make it sound so *difficult*. This admin and that admin, both unnamed, and mysterious hints of warring admins (not the case at all). The salient facts are that Justanother has requested deletion, 48 hours are well past, and the dispute resolution evidence offered by Smee is utterly inadequate, see discussion on my Talk, where I told Smee: "The links at "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" are no good, to put it brutally. Posting warning templates on JA's page certainly doesn't qualify as attempted dispute resolution. (Didn't I tell you once that it was frowned on?) Dispute resolution means a bona fide attempt at reaching out, and I think you may be too upset with JA to be the best person for it.". My advice to get some real dispute resolution attempt made (besides that of Anynobody, who is one user, not the two users required by the RFC instructions) wasn't taken. I second Justanother's request that an uninvolved admin consider deleting this RfC.Bishonen | talk 15:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
 * NOTE: - Please note that there are already at least two administrators involved in this RFC process. Smee 03:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Yes, one said to not post it without further attempt at resolving any dispute and the other, in my opinion, wrongfully promoted it from candidate staus. The latter is the situation that I would like some help with. --Justanother 04:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a disruptive waste of space on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page, which has been done before. There is no need for more Admins to get involved, as your perceptions about the individuals currently involved are inaccurate.  However, if other Admins wish to comment at the RFC: Requests for comment/Justanother, I'm sure it would be welcomed by the other editors already involved on that page...  Smee 04:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is pretty inappropriate, Smee. But OK, you've had your say. --Justanother 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You've both had your say here, it seems. I ask that you both refrain from escalating the conflict here.  If the RfC is deemed to have failed, try mediation or arbitration.  I'm not closing it because I have no knowledge of RfC.  Don't dispute on this board past a complaint and response, please.  Teke ( talk ) 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone, please feel free to remove the off-topic thread. Thanks --Justanother 12:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Having had a quick look at the RFC, I am struggling to see where there has been much effort at prior dispute resolution. Some of the claimed efforts at dispute resolution relate to warning templates - a sure-fire way to find common ground.  Not.


 * I was also a little surprised to see that Daniel.Bryant upgraded the page from a candidate to an approved RFC just one minute before endorsing a rather negative commentary on the actions of the person whose conduct is the subject of the RFC.


 * I don't have much experience of RFCs, and am not familiar with the actions of the parties here, so I am loath to wade: can someone who with more familiarity of this process please have a look at this. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody? OK, I'll just delete it myself. After all, I'm as "uninvolved" as anybody in the content of it, I'm on nobody's side; I've merely attempted, on request, to assist Anynobody and Smeelgova in setting it up correctly. The 48-hour rule is very clear, this case is very obvious, and Justanother has waited long enough to have a reasonable request executed. Bishonen | talk 02:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Thank you very much, Bishonen. I am going to try to enjoy a well-earned wiki-break! --Justanother 02:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Persistent uncivil behaviour by JoeMystical
<Small>The JoeMystical's posts identified by Bi as the basis for the request in this noticeboard incident are not personal attacks. -- Jreferee 19:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC) I've reported JoeMystical before for uncivil behaviour bordering on personal attacks, though administrator User:J.Smith decided at that time it was a just a "one-time incident" and took no further action. Now, however, it's clear that it's not a "one-time incident", as JoeMystical is at it again: see,. I therefore urge administrators to take some preventive action now, and put a stop to his scurrilous behaviour. Bi 08:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Those links aren't attacks, they aren't even uncivil in my opinion. He's stating simply that you're trying to get articles or content deleted because you are anti-Tech... whatever that means. That's not uncivil. He's arguing against your *position*, he's not calling you names. Wjhonson 08:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I'm not one to put up with incivility, but I see nothing in those comments that requires admin intervention. You may be reading it as incivility, but it looks like perfectly ordinary criticism to me. I think there's plenty of room for you and JoeMystical to resolve your dispute without admins needing to point fingers.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  08:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not proper criticism. It's "[u]sing someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." In each of the 3 cases, instead of addressing the specific issue being discussed, he's using the fact that I'm anti-Neo-Tech to discredit my arguments.


 * Anyway, I don't get it. First, J. Smith tells me the first attack is just a "one-time" attack of incivility, and now suddenly none of them are uncivil attacks. So which is it? Please make up your minds and let me know. Bi 08:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Admins aren't required to have one collective mind that they make up. I haven't seen the previous supposed attacks, but I know that the examples you quoted are far from personal attacks. "Discrediting your arguments" isn't against any policy. What you have here is not a case that requires administrator intervention, but a run-of-the-mill content dispute.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  21:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User Nowonline and Original research
User:Wjhonson removed as a source "Richard B Autry" and made a post on Nowonline's talk page regarding the same. -- Jreferee 19:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC) User talk:Nowonline is apparently ignoring the No Original Research policy WP:Attribution, and seems unwilling to discuss it, having blanked the section on the account's associated talk page. In several articles, the source is given as unpublished work by Richard B. Autry - am I right in saying the doesn't meet with policy? If so, could a friendly Admin "have a word" so to speak, or, if I'm wrong, let me know. Thanks, WLDtalk 16:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and a full text search of Wikipedia shows the number of articles that this affects: WLDtalk 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Matter does not need administrator intervention and has otherwise been resolved. -- Jreferee 19:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:82.111.128.3 edit/revert warring
continues to undo edits in Socialist Party USA and Misandry, despite repeated warnings (past final), and with insufficient discussion. Particularly in Misandry this user is re-inserting (a long block of) text that has been repeatedly discussed with a consensus to remove in the past. User has been contacted on Talk pages for user and both articles, and has had policies pointed out. User seems to be an experienced editor (IP so can't be certain) and despite frequent reversions is avoiding 3RR on both articles. / edgarde 15:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been watching the disputes at Socialist Party USA, though since I'm part of that organization I've tried to avoid becoming too involved. The user does seem to have some experience, though complained at one point about not knowing how to sign talk page posts.


 * The edits to the SP article are POV-pushing, but relatively minor. A few editors have addressed them on the article's talk page, focusing on verifiability.  However, the user seems to be treating changes to his contributions as personal attacks, and is reluctant to trust the advice of other involved editors, or their discussions of policies.  I'm not sure what can be done to improve this situation, with the user feeling so persecuted and defensive.


 * One final note: I was interested to see that the user has contributed to articles about the Croatian left. This reminded me of last year's "SP USA spammer", who edited exclusively from British and Croatian IPs.  This of course is far from conclusive, but may be worth considering.  -David Schaich Talk/Cont 18:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Still at it. Editor has abandoned Talk page discussion (participation had been minimal), and has reverted neutral helpful contributions. If the 3RR rules specified 25 hours he'd be in violation in Misandryhistory, and is probably in 3RR violation in Socialist Party USAhistory. Could really use a 24-hour block here. / edgarde 17:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Game (game) talk page
The request for restoring the talk page or emailing the contents belongs at WP:DRV. -- Jreferee 19:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Can an admin please restore the talk page of this: the archives have been lost, and it's good we have a record of such things. 5 records worth, gone!! please help! --66.79.168.140 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Talk pages of deleted articles are usually deleted together with the article itself. I see no reason to keep the talk page in this case. --cesarb 17:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a reason for doing so: people need this information for deletion review purposes, OK?? Gay nigger association of america has a talkpage even though article is deleted,. --Apoplexic Cafe Dude 17:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No need for deletion review purposes at all. Deletion review is simple provide some third-party non-trivial reliable sources, no need for a talk page to do that. --pgk 18:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Contents of that talk page until it was protected as deleted fell, for quite some time, into these distinct patterns:
 * Abject nonsense
 * "You just lost the game" or other similarly hilarious variants on that particularly unoriginal theme (also, incidentally, a common form of vandalism when we had the article)
 * Reposts of the deleted content
 * Argufying about the deletion
 * Of these, the last belongs on deletion review and the rest belong on Uncyclopedia or somewhere else. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The request for restoring or emailing article page or talk page content will be best addressed at WP:DRV. I posted this on  talk page. Thus, this noticeboard's involvement in the incident has been resolved. -- Jreferee 19:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Werdnabot out of commission
Werdnabot has now been blocked for several days following a malfunction. Werdna does not appear to be around to deal with the problem. It may be worth considering switching the archiving to MiszaBot II (for project talk pages and noticeboards) and MiszaBot III (for user talk pages), especially if talkpages are getting very full. To have either of those Bots handle archiving, make a request at User:MiszaBot/Archive requests, including the following information: Hopefully that should keep everything functioning smoothly... WjBscribe 15:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Page to be archived =
 * 2) Current archive =
 * 3) Age threads should reach before being archived =
 * 4) Max size of archive before new archive is started =
 * Update: I have created a dedicated page for the requests: User:MiszaBot/Archive requests. Please post them there. Thanks, Миша 13 17:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

- Legal threats, personal attacks, threats of an edit war
Back in 2002 I took some photographs of Tara Subkoff's Imitation of Christ fashion show. One of the "vignettes" in the show was of models wearing a line of underwear vacuuming topless. Professional photographs can be seen on the highly-regarded Vogue Magazine's Style.com and Artnet Magazine. I put my photograph on the Tara Subkoff page (there is no Imitation of Christ page). Chris77xyz has some kind of issue with breasts and initially tried to add a disclaimer that they don't represent Subkoff's designs (as the links above to mainstream publications show, they do) and then tried to take them off. He is now threatening legal action, called me a "scumb bag" and "perv" and is threatening edit wars. The photographs aren't obscene, unless breasts are obscene (British editors/admins take note). These are clear cut case of violation of No_legal_threats and No_personal_attacks. I note I reverted his edits one time and he has never made any attempt to contact me. --DavidShankBone 15:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have links to Chris77yz's offenses so that we don't have to search to verify if true or not? Cla68 15:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I had included it in the edit summary, but forgot to include it in the text - doh! It's on the Talk page of the Tara Subkoff article.--DavidShankBone 15:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * —xyzzyn 15:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked Chris77xyz for 24 hours for gross incivility, personal attacks, and borderline legal threats. Someone may with to review or expand on my comments on his talk page.
 * I note that some of DavidShankBone's conduct – while probably not rising to the level of blockable behaviour on a first offense – also has left something to be desired. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now left a note for DavidShankBone about his conduct on his talk page, as well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - and I understand your points. The issue had been resolved, mostly, by myself and several other editors.  And resolved amicably.  As the initial editor involved in challenging the photographs said, "I appreciate your willingness to compromise."  Then another editor came in and said they were fine.  A month later, Chris came in and wrote an unsourced, uncited statement that the photos don't represent Subkoff's designs (they do) and questioned the relevance of the section (I dare say she's received more reviews for her Imitation of Christ line than her acting).  Chris did not add anything to the talk page after putting the relevance tag up, but pointed to a resolved discussion in which compromise was undertaken.  This is why I auto-reverted:  Unsourced statements, and putting a relevance tag pointing to a discussion that had resolved an issue, and one to which Chris did not contribute.  I also realize a quick reading of the page does not make this readily apparent, but I don't think my behavior was all that bad, to be honest.  Chris contributed nothing to the Talk page or my own User Talk page.  --DavidShankBone 16:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support the block, good messages left to both parties. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonty Rhodes article and edits by Paul Venter
Hi, Paul Venter seems to take an issue with positioning of the Image:Jonty_rhodes02.jpg and insists it should not be placed in the infobox since this is simply convention and does not neccessarily need to be followed. There has been a discussion in the talk page, and every one except Paul agrees it should go in the infobox, but he keeps reverting this. Please have a look and protect the page since this might soon descend into a revert war.Rueben lys 15:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * content dispute. Cla68 15:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not so much content as much layout dispute.Rueben lys 15:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No need for admin attention, try WP:DR. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I added links to process on the article talk page to aid their discussion. This noticeboard's participation in the matter is resolved since no further need for admin attention. -- Jreferee 17:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

CFD Spamming
Spamming reverted, warning given, CfD closing admin notified. -- Jreferee 19:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A copending related issue is posted here. -- Jreferee 20:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

(see contribs for a string of spam solicitations) has been spamming for CFD votes and attacking me for CFD'ing a cat. See ,,,,. And then a string of attacks on me ,,,,. The cfd's in question are Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_9.  Baka man  16:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reverted most of the spamming and given a warning to him in the strongest words possible. Please inform this noticeboard (or me) if he continues to canvass for the cfd. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I placed a notice to the CfD closing admin regarding this thread. -- Jreferee 19:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Mohanishjagtap has been contributing to Wikipedia since February 25, 2007. This user has been participating in the current WPBiography template assessment drive. However, his/her contributions has caused considerable trouble. The user has not responded to any of the messages placed on his/her talk page and continues to make talk page posts that will need to be cleaned up. Blocking this user for 24 (?) hours may be the only way to get this person's attention to address the concerns posted on his/her talk page. Please review this situaiton. Thanks. -- Jreferee 19:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that there appear to be several days' delays between their activities, so 24 hours may not be enough. BNutzer 20:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We cleaned up his contributions and an admin has gotten involved. The noticeboard's involvement in this matter is resolved. -- Jreferee 19:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fujimori-press.jpg on List of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee people
Since Admin involvement is not required for this incident, this noticeboard's involvement in the incident has been resolved. -- Jreferee 20:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

An editor is consistently violating the fair-use requirement of the above image, and does not understand the appropriate fair use claims of the image. Can an admin please step in and describe whether or not the image should appropriately be displayed on the List of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee people? I'm not quite sure if this is the correct place for this inquiry, but the editor in question doesn't seem to listen to logic and doesn't understand the nature of the dispute. Thanks much, PaddyM 20:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I added this thread to the talk page requesting a Fair Use statement and provided a link for future copyright questions. Since Admin involvement is not required for this incident, this noticeboard's involvement in the incident has been resolved. -- Jreferee 20:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:SkipSmith
Requestor's post created paper trail desired by requestor. -- Jreferee 20:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 *  The Administrators noticeboard post here relates to a cross post made by User SkipSmith. -- Jreferee 15:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This user is someone who has cyberstalked me on various sites around the web. Suspiciously, just after I talked about my experiences with the article on the South Park episode "Make Love, Not Warcraft" in my blog, he shows up there solely to post a personal attack, as shown at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Make_Love%2C_Not_Warcraft&diff=113790042&oldid=112769131.

I understand one incident is far from enough to justify any kind of block, but I wanted to establish a "paper trail". I simply want this person to leave me alone. - 66.93.144.171 20:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Complaining about "personal attacks" and in the same breath calling someone a stalker. Oh, the irony. SkipSmith 22:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

False accusation of bad faith RFD nomination
Resolved by the deletion review and the withdrawl of the deletion review. -- Jreferee 20:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC) RFD with speedy keep as "clear...well, WP:POINT nomination.", Post on my talk page accusing me of having been involved in a dispute and nominating because of this - violation of WP:CIV, WP:AGF, possibly WP:NPA. Note also Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point guideline I was accused of violating. Actually read it for comprehension everyone please, the common misinterpretation is exactly what my problem with the shortcut was. See also Wikipedia talk:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - others made posts on substantially the same issue long before I even thought of this. WP:POINT is widely misquoted, and the primary reason is because the main shortcut to it says "POINT" and ignores the fact that only _disruptive_ point-making is invalid. --Random832 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * When you thought about nominating it for RfD, did you actually think there was any chance at all that it was going to be deleted, or did you just nominate it because you think it's been misquoted? Picaroon 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I nominated it because the shortcut itself is harmful because i think that it is the cause of this misinterpretation. --Random832 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree that people often incorrectly call 'WP:POINT' on things which aren't at all disruptive I doubt that the name of the redirect is the cause of that. People will always 'interpret' things more broadly than they were intended. --CBD 22:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If the only shortcut were WP:DISRUPT, you don't think people would think twice about linking to it when people aren't disrupting? --Random832 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway - I didn't come here to complain about the closure. See the DRV for that. I came here to complain about the absolutely unjustified accusation that _I_ was in a dispute and nominated it for that reason. (which, incidentally, even if true STILL would not violate WP:POINT, because even if there were a conflict of interest or something else that might well violate some other guideline, a single RFD is in no way disruptive) --Random832 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that your RFD nom was sincere - on the view that deleting that abbreviation would clarify the intent of the policy. You may even be right about just having 'WP:DISRUPT' leading to less mis-linking... but 'disruption' applies to alot more than just 'disrupting to make a point', so that wouldn't be clear either. Not surprising that abbreviations for shortcuts are less than fully descriptive. --CBD 23:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The RfD nomination for WP:POINT was closed 22:19, 9 March 2007 with the phrase ", clear...well, WP:POINT nomination." The deletion review of this closure was posted at 22:26, 9 March 2007. This administrative request was posted 12 minutes later, at 22:38, 9 March 2007. The growing concensus at the deletion review appears to have addressed the issue posted here - "accusation that _I_ was in a dispute and nominated it for that reason." The deletion review was withdrawn 00:31, 10 March 2007. This 22:38, 9 March 2007 post issue matter appears to have been resolved by the deletion review and its withdrawl. -- Jreferee 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

CfD Tamil Americans
Does not require noticeboard intervention. Thus, this noticeboard's involvement in the incident is resolved. -- Jreferee 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A copending related issue is posted here. -- Jreferee 20:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

... is getting ugly pretty quickly (i.e., it's devolved into "you're saying that because you don't like my ethnicity"). Don't know what should be done, or if anything can be done, but I really thought I should give a heads-up on this. Part Deux 02:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Somewhat heated discussion, but CfD posts are orderly. Does not require noticeboard intervention. Thus, this noticeboard's involvement in the incident is resolved. -- Jreferee 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

<Small>Incident being handled at Requests for arbitration per Guy.-- Jreferee 20:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC) This user has edited only to try to get John Bambenek undeleted. I was assuming good faith, until he requested an Arbcom case the instant after he created an RfC on it. Now I'm not. -Amarkov moo! 03:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I assumed good faith, but I also assumed that it's yet another sockpuppet of User:JohnBambenek, whose good faith is at odds with policy, so I blocked the account and reverted the Bambenek RfC and comented on WP:RFAR. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

vandalism by anonymous Telia user with shifting IPs
Pilotguy applied anon-only blocks to these ranges. -- Jreferee 20:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC) What I believe to be a single user This person is committing a particularly invidious kind of vandalism with dozens of small edits that escape attention under AIV or even warnings a lot of the time, and has hours to devote to it. TedFrank 14:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * While the edits aren't vandalism, they're certainly counterproductive, and attempting to edit from multiple IPs is also an aggravating factor. I've applied anon-only blocks to these ranges. —Pilot guy (go around)  14:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm having an on-going problem with this user at Berliner FC Dynamo and from the looks of his talk page he's been causing other folks various forms of grief as well.

While he has made some useful additions to the page its been an on-going struggle to keep him from turning the article into some sort of fan-page and from applying a pro-East Germany / Dynamo-themed POV on much of what he edits despite requests/warnings from multiple users. My specific concerns include:


 * repeated use and posting of un-sourced image files
 * repeated use of out-dated or incorrect material when it has been clearly shown that there are more current/accurate materials available
 * consistent failure to respond to messages on his talk page whether in English or his native German including immediate deletion or archiving of other editors remarks, blanking or editing of other editors talk pages, tagging other editors remarks with NPOV markers
 * consistent failure to annotate edits despite repeated requests to do so
 * creation of pages that duplicate existing pages in all respects except their titles
 * on-going edits to Berliner FC Dynamo which are not neutral in character and reflect a clear bias, including attempts to whitewash or santitize unsavory aspects of the clubs history, repeated addition of spam links to the page, deletion of material and image captions, deletion of citations, repeatedly restoring poorly translated materials after they have been properly edited
 * on-going edits to pages about Marylin Monroe containing incorrect or unsourced material including an on-going dispute over a Latin translation that 10 minutes spent on Google would clearly resolve in other editors favour

A review of Nadia's talk page or the history of some of the pages in question will show a persistaint disdain for other editors and established policy here. He has previously been blocked for similar behavior, but still refuses to show any inclination to manage various POV's or ensure the quality/accuracy of his contributions. Anything you can do would be helpful. Wiggy! 17:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And he has also now taken to replacing without comment images at Berliner FC Dynamo with versions that are inaccurate or have been challenged as inaccurate at Image:Berliner FC Dynamo 10.png and Image:Dynamo 3.png making the job of cleaning up after him a little more involved. Wiggy! 20:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And he's hard at it, reverting my edit without comment and despite my remarks as I type this ... Wiggy! 20:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Identity confirmed by bbatsell. -- Jreferee 21:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A co-pending incident regarding this matter is posted here.

There is some question as to whether User:Shelbyyoung is the living person that is the subject of the article on this actress. Per innappropriate usernames, this account may be temporarily blocked pending confirmation if in an administrator's best judgment. Please consider giving this matter a look. -- Jreferee 18:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never dealt with confirming identities before, but I dug into her userpage history a bit and she had a picture up of herself holding a handwritten sign with her username and mentioning Wikipedia. I have no idea if that is sufficient, but I am confirming (since it has since been deleted by request) that that picture existed, was clearly Shelby Young, and did not appear to be edited in any way.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  18:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

AntiVandal Bot
Hurray! Looks like it's back! --Nlu (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Lukas19, 3RR


USER LUKAS HAS VIOLATED THE 3 REVERT RULE IN WHITE PEOPLE. VERITAS 65.3.245.190 20:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay, calm down. I think you're looking for this. // Decaimiento  Poético  20:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also note the above section: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Lukas19 20:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already filed a report on Lukas19 The Behnam 20:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

time stamp for the bot. Viridae Talk 01:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom and User:Pete K
Not sure where the ArbCom members/clerks have disappeared to - but User:Pete K is adding this to the current ArbCom review - Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review. I think there might be a major WP:BLP issue here ..., have tried removing but Pete keeps adding it back in. Any help would be appreciated! Cheers Lethaniol 20:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears to be gone now (and I've deleted the link from the above also). I'm watching the page and if this is reinserted I will have to issue a block. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Newyorkbrad 21:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that Pete K has now been blocked for a week for multiple 3RR violations. Newyorkbrad 23:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

� (Bot unicode problem)
Problem with all of the AntiVandalBots that requires attention. The bots seem to be replacing all nonstandard unicode symbols with �s. The problem is quite widespread and may require the temporary blocking of all of bots of this type until the bug is corrected-- VectorPotential Talk 20:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As an example,, and they're all doing it-- VectorPotential Talk 20:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just came to report the same problem. Please block User:AntiVandalBot. Nearly all of its edits are bugged. --- RockMFR 20:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Already done. If you find another bot with the same problem, it may indicate a problem with the framework (if they use the same one, I mean). -- ReyBrujo 20:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the bot for a day and notified Tawker. - Mike Rosoft 20:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * seems to be doing the same thing, although it looks like Martin shut his bot down already since it hasn't edited since 19:35 when the first bug was reported-- VectorPotential Talk 20:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Martinp23 is aware of the issue.  Snowolf (talk) CON COI  -  20:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that MartinBot has become active again-- VectorPotential Talk 21:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have gone through all of AntiVandalBot's today's edits and reverted the unicode damage it caused on all of them. --cesarb 21:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * MartinBot *should* be inactive right now. This behaviur is very strange and unexpected, but seems to stem from the fact that the bots use an older version of a python library, which has clearly become incompatible with Wikipedia's use of unicode.  I'll take a look at fixing the problem tomorrow evening - there may be another library we can use to make the edits unicode compliant - failing that, I'll try to find out where the problem is being caused in the library as it is now. Thanks for your patience :) Mart inp23  22:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The block on AntiVandalBot is just for 24 hours; will it stay stopped, or should the block be extended to avoid it becoming active again before being fixed? --cesarb 22:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm liking the second idea. // Decaimiento  Poético  22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As the IRC part of the bot is still online, make it indef until Tawker gets back (or a toolserver admin kills the processes). I've just made a small change to the code, which may fix the problems (but may not...), so I'll do a short, controlled trial on MartinBot - feel free to revert any edits by it, and I too will be watching them like a hawk.  Thanks, Mart inp23  22:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The bug seems to be fixed now (on my copy), but Tawker won't have this just yet until he recives the email I'm about to send him, so suggest that TakwerBot remains blocked. A caveat: the bots will only revert one edit, so will only revert the top edit on multiple edit vandalism - myself or Tawker willl throw a fix together for this soon.  Thanks, Mart inp23  23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * AntiVandalBot seems to be working again too, so as long as these are the only two bots affected, all is well-- VectorPotential Talk 23:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This was brought up on the Help Desk, and I thought it might be a good idea to bring it here before it turns into an edit war (: Would probably be good for a third party to get involved-- VectorPotential Talk 22:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Iantresman
User:Iantresman is under ArbCom sanction at Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. I think his comments at Deletion review/Log/2007 March 6 constitute disruption, as well as gross incivility. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of the background to this case, but his comments certainly seem incivil, and the whole DRV is arguably disruptive. I'd support a short block. Trebor 22:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Needs to be someone else, I'm an involved party. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'm a newbie admin, so would prefer another set of uninvolved eyes to have a look. Trebor 23:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer not to see him blocked within a couple of hours after he has filed an arbitration case, unless it's unavoidable. I'd have no problem with a strong warning, though, and follow-up if he continues. Newyorkbrad 00:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fair Guy; I report another editor for (a) abusing policy, and (b) being uncivil in removing my comments from an AfD (which another administrator agreed), and although the other editor was cautioned under the same ArbCom case, absolutely nothing is done. And I should get a ban!
 * This is exactly why I have taken this to Arbitration,, and that should be the place to decide this issue, not because you think that the consensus disagrees with my views. --Iantresman 00:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)