Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive310

We have a problem
From b3ta's monthly newletter: http://www.b3ta.com/newsletter/issue298/

>> Quopedia vandalism << "Hello b3ta Towers," blurps danbull45, "We would like to divulge to you the following very  sinister secret. Using a variety of aliases and  cunning page edits, we have now subtly shopped  Status Quo into nearly 200 different photos on  Wikipedia. Our aim is for every image in  Wikipedia to have Teh Quo hidden somewhere  within it. We'd like to show you the fruits of  our labour, but for obvious reasons can't  reveal the location of each image - so here is  a taster of our handiwork. Perhaps your  newsletter's readers could aid us in our  glorious mission?"

Looks like the vandalism was caught, but what other images have they been fiddling with? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ooh, clever little buggers. I've filed a CheckUser request, just in case it might help.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should have a policy that any revisions to images that don't change that image in any visible way should always be reverted. Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:35, 10/13/2007
 * That would not have helped in this case. Further details omitted per WP:BEANS, though it's not that hard to figure out.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon user is back with more personal attacks
User 209.188.56.146 (who is obviously 209.188.62.12, same edit summaries, same info, same attacks) is once again engaging in personal attacks and disruptive behaviour. (see original IP's talk page for warnings given in previous incident) on the USS Liberty Incident page. Narson 15:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. This and this appear to be quite similar. Cheers, ( ar ky ) 16:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor addendum: I do realise that assuming they are one and the same could be seen as failing to AGF, however I think its obvious to the point that not assuming it would be 'putting out your eyes to maintain the NPOV of your nose', so to speak.Narson 16:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not sure that would violate AGF would it? Rudget Editor Review 16:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a violation of AGF. AGF doesn't require us to stick our heads in the ground. Anyways, I blocked the IP for 24 hours. JoshuaZ 00:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nationalistic edits
User:Kukar is making nationalistic edits on wikipedia. For evidence of this statement I will give example of his edits in article Vrlika. This is link for his changes []. For me it is clear that his only changes are deleting of Croats name and changing that with south slavic or not speaking about few facts (old Catholic church, influence of the Frankish Empire, today demography of this "city"). --Rjecina 19:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a routine content dispute not requiring administrator intervention. Please discuss the matter using the article's talk page (or communicate directly with the other editor). Raymond Arritt 20:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User:JunKazamaFan
is currently (as I type this) harassing User:TTN at User talk:TTN, by repeatedly replacing questions/accusations multiple times after TTN removed them. Also has made a personal attack on his user page: User:JunKazamaFan which has already been removed several times, only to be replaced by either him or User:Angie Y.. - Warthog Demon  20:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is no excuse whatsoever, but TTN hasn't been making any friends with his 'delete first and to hell with questions' attitude. I'm not involved in any way with this and, as I said, there's no call for harrassment, but I've seen his name come up quite often and not many people have nice things to say about him. HalfShadow 20:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Controversial or not, this is indeed ridiculous. I haven't agreed with some of the things he's done either but I do understand what he's doing. At any rate, this is less about TTN's activities and more about being harrassed and attacked on the user's page. - Warthog Demon  20:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to think of this. JuJube 21:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that it was intended humorously, but I've asked, just to be sure. - Philippe &#124; Talk 21:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Jesusforever
User:Jesusforever is engaging in vandalism at Evolution as theory and fact.--Filll 21:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Vandalism reporting is thataway-> HalfShadow 21:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * User blocked for vandalism. - Philippe &#124; Talk 21:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one here thinking that he should be nameblocked based on both his name (Criterion 5) and the article he's been vandalizing? -Jéské ( v^_^v ) 03:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I don't think the name is inherently offensive, although the edits themselves are. Do you think people who aren't so into  Jesus would necessarily have a hard time with this name?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, this can be seen as invok[ing] the name of a religious figure in a... provocative way and promot[ing] one religion over another (Christianity). -Jéské ( v^_^v ) 04:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You (unintentionally, I'm sure) left out an equally relevant part of this policy: "Note that simple expressions of faith are allowed unless they are disruptive, but are discouraged."--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that he's been vandalizing an article on evolution, I'd say that this is beyond that and into invoking the name of a religious figure in a provocative way. I'll yield on the promotion part, but I still feel he's invoking Jesus to vandalize articles his particular religious views may disagree with. -Jéské ( v^_^v ) 04:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User: Scrimmer87
the user has apparently created this account for the sole purpose of vandalizing articles. Could some one please summarily give them twenty lashes with a wet noodle, then excommunicate them?

(So I'm bored with the simple requests of please block this guy)

- Jeremy (Jerem43 23:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC))


 * No. You have not even tried to talk to him, and even if you had and had got nowhere, you should go to Administrator intervention against vandalism and not here. Sam Blacketer 23:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * After you revert vandalism edits, it is recommended you warn the vandal, the warnings at WP:UTM are commonly used. Mr.  Z- man  00:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How can you tell that an account is "vandalism-only" when he's made a total of two edits? -- llywrch 00:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you read them? They were both vandalism, very obvious vandalism. Over the past few months I have observed the trend where newly created accounts that start off vandalizing with their first edit, continue to do so. Usually asking these types of editor (vandals) to stop or posting warnings on their talk pages is ineffective as they don't really care about niceties. Personal observation and opinion, not a commentary on you posts, and the reason for me posting when and what I did. - Jeremy (Jerem43 01:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC))
 * I have observed that many vandal only editors have a contrib history that lasts one day (or, more exactly, one evening) - the next day their hangover is so bad they cannot remember the password they used the night before. It is a waste of time placing an indef block template on their page the day after the event. If they are not caught in the act then forget about them until such time the account is reactivated. LessHeard vanU 02:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Still, you're not going to get a lot of admin support if you don't at least tell people not to vandalize. They were more like childish "wow, I can really do this"-type stuff.  There's much nastier vandalism that gets immediate blocks.  If he continues after warnings (if it's blatant, use Blatantvandal), then he'll be blocked.  Also, I don't know if you've noticed but he stopped right after the warning.  No need for a block.  Who knows, it's actually possible for him to become a helpful editor afterwards.  We'll see.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Warnings DO work, especially if you keep an eye on the vandals. I check back almost every day and escalate as appropriate, and go to WP:AIV if needed. When these vandals find out that someone is watching them, many stop their vandalism and make useful contributions. Sometimes it takes a block but you won't get a block if you don't warn first. I've watched a whole lot of editors who vandalized daily but eventually learned better and went two or three weeks without any vandalism and sometimes with useful contributions. If I had not warned them and sometimes requested a block, those vandals likely would have continued vandalizing every day. Sbowers3 03:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

AIV backlog
Can we get some lovin' at WP:AIV? The backlog is growing pretty large. Thanks! --ElKevbo 00:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Lovin' received and backlog cleared (ew - I didn't realize those two phrases might mean something when put together like that...). Thanks!  --ElKevbo 01:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Return of PatPeter
I'm hesitant, though I think it's likely. So I'll directly ask for others to view:

Is User:Sox207, User:PatPeter?

I find him creating sub-pages of PatPeter's userpages. He's setting up the same "rules" (and using the same wording) in userboxes. He seems to have the same tone, and uses similar phrasing ("Seriously"). And he's editing inactive userpages based on his "rules".

I ran into him changing userboxes against concensus at Userboxes, and WP:UCFD. Though the more I talked with him, and the more I looked into his edit history, the more I think he is. He even started editing when PatPeter stopped.

However, I don't think I can request a CU, as this might fall under "just curious". (It looks like it would fall under "F".)

I'd appreciate it if others would check this out and offer insight. - jc37 00:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See Requests for checkuser/Case/PatPeter for more information. - jc37 19:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Possible - let's see how the checkuser goes. Durova Charge! 14:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

DGG is not a neutral admin
I would like to bring to all of your notice that DGG is not a neutral admin, or at least his admin actions do not suggest so. DGG, it appears, has deleted the older comments I had posted to his talk page concerning these issues. I suggest if he cannot be neutral he should please give up his admin rights. I am speaking with valid reference. He have been very well aware of the articles on Hindi Programming Language and Hindawi Programming System; in fact he created a disambiguation page for Hindawi where he linked in both of these. Now, today he have deleted the list of keywords and certain other material from the Hindawi Programming System page while he has not done so with the Hindi Programming Language page. The keywords were added to the HPS page yesterday, but they have all through been there on the HPL page. DGG explain his actions and the lack of neutrality. Further, the chain of events go like this. There was an older page on Hindawi which referred to the Hindawi Programming System. He first changed its contents to an advertisement like article on Hindawi Publishing Corporation, without ever discussing it. Then he move the company related article to a different name and redirected Hindawi to the new page. Please open any other encyclopedia and see what Hindawi refers to. Even though I assume good intent, I found a DGG comment on another admins' page requesting support in dealing with me. This was outrageous. I am really let down by the manner in which DGG is handling his admin responsibilities. Please let the _open_ spirit of WP survive DGG - an honest humble request. Please be neutral. When you marked Hindawi Programming System for deletion even though it was not at all intended so, I presumed good intent and believed the article needed restructuring. Why then do you behave so differently about Hindi Programming Language where the advertisement intent of an completely unreferenced article has been admitted clearly by the author?

For those of you who may be interested Hindawi Programming System is a well referenced and reviewed piece of open source software which has been well recognised internationally, with even Linux Magazine reviewing it. Unfortunately its name clashes with a commercial entity. The rest is all evident. Is WP another yellow pages?

I expect an honest and well balanced / well judged response from the community. Hi pedler 04:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler Hi pedler 04:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler


 * I'd just like to point out that any editor, admins included, are allowed to remove whatever they want from their talk pages. Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:51, 10/13/2007


 * Especially when they're delightful material such as this.  I don't understand why any of this has to do with him being an admin, or "neutral", or why it's anything but a content dispute with someone who has a COI in this respect.  --Haemo 04:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To reinforce Equazcion's point, I have also been told by administrators that removing messages from talk pages is actually okay, because they are still available in the talk page history. As pertains to DGG, I have found him to be quite neutral and objective in any of my dealings with him and I overall think he is one of the finest administrators that I have interacted with on this site. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 04:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is he being non neutral then? This is explained above with respect to the way he has dealt with the article on Hindawi and all the related articles. WP has lost its spirit, as per the comments above. It should probably be called a yellow pages and not an encyclopedia if articles about commercial entities are given prefernce over encyclopedic articles. Hi pedler 05:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler
 * Agreed fully. I sometimes disagree with DGG on specific issues (it would be a dull world if everyone agreed on everything) but I have never found him anything other than civil, fair and knowledgeable. Remarks like this and this, in contrast, show Hi pedler to be needlessly overbearing. Raymond Arritt 05:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * DGG's boringly neutral. Not even I can find fault with him as an administrator.  He'll also listen to you if you put your case out and may agree to change something because you've offered sufficient evidence.  It is hard to follow what you're saying here or accusing him of, though.  Maybe sticking with the facts at issue rather than your perception of DGG and extraneous issues about talk page deletions could clear the matter up.  KP Botany 06:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support DGG as well. I've also dealt with Hi pedler as well.  There is also some serious COI concerns.  I've even been accused of working with DGG  simply for having commented on possibly articles from Hi pedler. Again, Hi pedler, you need to be more specific about what you find not neutral from DGG. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I also support DGG's neutrality. While I don't always agree with him, he always does his best (IMO) to maintain a polite and neutral atmosphere. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As someone who have often disagreed with DGG on AfD I have to second that. I have never found him to be anything more than a guy who presents his point of view politely and often quite convinsingly. Move along, there is nothing to see here. EconomicsGuy 06:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We should preserve this little set of commentaries, because I think DGG's neutrality is the only thing this set of editors has ever and ever will agree upon. Can we get it framed in gold or something?   KP Botany 06:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I've ever run into any of the other editors here other than DGG (who technically isn't here, but...) ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha. It's true. The fact that people on both sides of many disputes agree on this means that he really must be neutral. I especially agree with the "...boringly so" comment, it's funny someone said that, as I was thinking the same thing. As for this particular dispute, which I'm sure the OP is getting frustrated that no one is commenting on, it's kind of hard to follow. I can't speak for everyone else but I myself am just confused by the situation as the OP has described it, and was waiting for DGG to come and clear this up for us. Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:03, 10/13/2007
 * Why was one article treated differently than the other? Without the specifics (your complaint was excessively broad, to the point of not actually saying anything, and just a quite unconvincing appeal to emotion), I can't say, but in general, what happens to one article in the deletion process does not affect the status of other articles. I can't say I've seen DGG do anything wrong here. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 07:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you every one. The few words I wrote above are _too long_ ? What should its length have been? Here are the specifics

Is that specific enough? Hi pedler 10:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler
 * 1. Now, today he has deleted the list of keywords and certain other material from the Hindawi Programming System while he has not done so with the Hindi Programming Language. The keywords were added to the HPS page yesterday, but they have all through been there on the HPL page. Refer programming languages
 * 2. There was an older page on Hindawi which referred to the Hindawi Programming System. He first changed its contents to an advertisement like article on Hindawi Publishing Corporation, without ever discussing it. Then he moved the company related article to a different name and redirected Hindawi to the new page. Please open any other encyclopedia and see what Hindawi refers to.


 * Some more points:

This is my last comment on this topic here. One more thing, Ricky81682 has made a last comment on Hindi Programming Language discussion page in a manner which leaves more deserving of an admin.
 * The name of the commercial entity is Hindawi Publishing Corporation and not Hindawi Publishing Company
 * DGG did not deal with the article on Bangabhasha. Why? Because it did not clash with the commercial entity's name?
 * DGG deals with Hindawi Programming System in one way. He keeps deleting 3rd party verifiable contents on the article. He marked it speedy as well. But he does not do the same for Hindi Programming Language. Please read the relevant discussion pages. Hindi Programming Language's author even admitted he intends it to be a means for the world to know about it.

The major point here is why doesn't DGG discuss something before deleting when it is a contested topic. Hi pedler 10:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler


 * I do not always agree with DGG- far from it. However, I have to support him completely in this instance.--Filll 16:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In view of all the support above, comment might seem superfluous, but I offered last night to re-examine the balance between the two programming system articles--I gather there is an intellectual property rights dispute between them--and to invite a specialist if we still disagreed (as I have no personal experience of how to program in Hindi), upon which Hi pedlar preferred to bring it here. But I first noticed this after an attempt by both Hi pedlar and some anon. to remove the article on the competitive  programming language  and on a publisher whose name resembled that of the company whose article he supports.  First I've heard of BangaBhasha, but as Hi pedlar seems to have been editing it, someone else might want to take a look at it. But Hi pedlar is right about the name of the publisher, about which he might be more familiar than I, so I'm moving it from H.P. Company to ... H. P. Corporation as he just now suggested.18:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC) (This was posted by User:DGG but does not seem to have his name for some reason.  KP Botany 20:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC))


 * In full disclosure, the comment from me that Hi pedler is discussing is here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm personally positive DGG isn't nuetral... I'll be damned if I can prove it though...JJJ999 05:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you DGG for the response. As about an expert taking a look at these articles, well I have personally wanted the same all through. I understand that WP is not the forum for deciding the IP rights conflict between the two programming systems, and I have earlier said the same in as many words. Request DGG to maintain the composure he has shown above and be a bit patient in applying speedy. Lets have a healthy attitude towards developing positive content. As about getting my contributions reviewed in general - I'll be the happiest. 122.169.9.78 05:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler


 * Another point - DGG has barred me from editing the above refernced pages. This is a violation of my right to free speech and I take it seriously. I understand the rules to WP hold their ground but DGG has no business barring my fundamental rights. Hi pedler 06:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler


 * Only one person is positive that DGG is not neutral - amazing! Hi pedler 06:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler


 * You have no right to free speech on Wikipedia. Freedom of speech provides that the government cannot abridge your right to free speech in public. This right has no effect on whether or not the private entity Wikipedia allows you to edit its content. --Cheeser1


 * ha ha ha... ho ho ho... I feel like I should burst out laughing... why was I wasting my time in the above then?? Hi pedler 06:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler
 * But the problem here is you're simply not going to get a rise out of DGG by accusing him of being other than neutral or a discussion on anything but the topic at hand, which is the article and editorial concerns about it, because that's pretty much what DGG does here: edits and discusses articles. He boringly replied to your accusations in just this manner above.  And this discussion has pretty much shown exactly what I said above: DGG is boringly neutral.  KP Botany 06:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Harassment by admin
This admin, together with  is I believe harrasing me. After a WP:CSB discussion (in which these two were instrumental) I believe they are watching my edits and trying to obstruct me where possible. I don't mind to discuss anything with them, but when calls me a 'chauvinist', and I subsequently add a comment and remove this line , not only readds the personal attack, but also removes my comment, twice, despite my clearly noted objections.Rex 10:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to keep an eye on your little mission to exaggerate the "Dutchness" of Ludwig van Beethoven, Rex. Somebody has to. I'm sick to the back teeth of editors whose only interest in the subject of an article is their ethnicity, nationality, linguistic affiliation etc. etc.. If we don't watch them we end up with lameness like this . --Folantin 11:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proving my suspicions. As you refered to refered to WP:LAME, I assume you're also familiar with WP:POINT? You know what pisses me off? Editors who do not edit wikipedia to improve it, but to activly seek trouble and conflict with other users without any objective reason and merely prejudice.Rex 11:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You must be pretty mad at yourself then. There's a pretty good reason why you're banned from going anywhere near articles on German subjects (which happens to include quite a few members of the Van Beethoven family). --Folantin 11:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the outcome Folantin, I know what I can and can't do and this isn't can't do. Anyway, do keep talking like this, It makes it easier for the admins to see who's doing what and why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rex Germanus (talk • contribs) 11:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they'll also note that you were blocked on September 30 for 24 days . On October 1, you were granted a "restrictive unblock" to take part in the Community Sanctions debate about you. Not sure that your recent editing history is really covered by that. --Folantin 11:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it is, though it's exempalry of your behaviour that despite being unsure and not knowing the facts, you still have a clear opinion on others. I tend to work differently. I for example, am sure that this doesnt matter at all. Being blocked doesn't give you a letter of marque to obstruct, harrass and offend without reprisal. Even though you yourself seem to think so.Rex 12:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ADD: Note the fine choice of words by Folantin .... Rex 12:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Lest we forget, Rex's current block is for WP:POINT, persistent conflictual edits, chronical failure to work for the project rather than use it for personal crusades. No doubt he'll be going after the blocking admin User:Rama for harrassment too. --Folantin 12:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Rex has a long history of problematic editing. He persistently pushes a highly pro-Dutch POV on the one hand, and an strongly anti-German one on the other. This is well-known, and calling a spade a spade is hardly a personal attack. Even if it was, NPA does not really permit the removal of such attacks. Rex's complaining here is a complete waste of everyone's time, and his POV-pushing is getting worse and worse, and more and more flagrant. If he doesn't start editing neutrally he'll have to be banned altogether. Moreschi Talk 12:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know wether to laugh or cry, you removed a comment and readded an attack. Twice. No matter how many blocks you digg up. It is not an excuse. I provide sources and explained my actions. If anyone here is editing based on POV its you.Rex 12:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is complete rubbish. Everyone knows what type of editor you are. This is really self-evident. No point denying the obvious. Remember the "German peasant blood", anyone? If you don't, here's the diff. Moreschi Talk 12:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The what-now? Let's tone it down. I'm having difficulties following what going on here, but I'm not seeing any harassment, either. El_C 12:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's not fair, you used a time machine! El_C 13:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All I'm seeing here is a load of bitch slapping, but no harassment. A  ecis Brievenbus 12:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're still on probation, Rex. We're supposed to be watching your edits. Will (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It's about maintaining Wikipedia's accuracy in the face of known POV-pushers. It was pretty obvious Rex would head straight back to his Beethoven campaign. Rex wasn't happy when I agreed with User:Fram and provided sources showing that Beethoven's ancestors were Flemish, thus fulfilling WP:V. Rex then went into some long, convoluted argument trying to prove that there were no Flemings at the time and so Ludwig's granddad was obviously Dutch, even though he came from what's now Belgium rather than the Netherlands. Most biographies of Beethoven spend very little time on the composer's more distant family background, usually contenting themselves with noting he was of "Flemish ancestry" before getting on to the details of his life and music. This being Wikipedia, of course, editor priorities seem to be exactly the reverse. --Folantin 13:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) I see no harassment and I also see that Rex Germanus was released early from a block only to defend himself, but instead has simply returned to the behavior that got him blocked in the first place. The previous block should be resumed and possibly lengthened.  —Wknight94 (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed with wknight94. I'm not seeing any harassment here, just a return to the old ways. You're on probation, of course you're being watched, that's sort of the point. 'Ad-hoc additional topic or article bans' - here's your kicker. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do we still have rpa? That's just a recepy for trouble, seeing how WP:RPA is long dead and buried. El_C 13:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked WATCHING does not involve obstructing or making offensive comments. I for one, am able to watch things WITHOUT calling people chauvinist or readding such attacks and removing comments. Especially an admin ought to know better. Rex 14:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * With that said, when is the 24-day block going to resume? Shall I reinstate it myself?  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The block was abandond after WP:CSB. Days ago.. How easy admins forget that this discussion isn't about me, but others.Rex 14:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. There's a rider on User:Jossi's comment: any related disruption will be taken very seriously and will be swiftly followed by an immediate 1 month block. --Folantin 15:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe we're still dealing with this guy. Raymond Arritt 15:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Done deal. One month block. If this thread isn't disruption, I don't know what is. - Jehochman  Talk 15:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Phew! Thank heavens for that. --Folantin 15:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with this block; any edits beyond his own defense (reason for restricted unblock) where a favour, Rex should have been careful not to abuse this leniency. That admins (who are not his old enemies) were thinking about disruptive edits are (IMHO) in this situation enough for a block. Arnoutf 16:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the ninth time Rex Germanus has been blocked since being put on probation. I'm thinking the ArbCom might be interested in hearing that.  Seems to me that serious bans have been levied for less disruptive cases.  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally I was just reviewing this case and thought "when you have to use the vertical scrollbar to see someone's complete block log, there are problems other than monitor size." Raymond Arritt 20:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Whaaa? Nine blocks since starting probation? That's crazy talk. Endorse the current block and I support Ray's comment below that the next stop is Indef Central. Rex, if you're still reading, please make sure that you're not back on this board for a tenth go post-probation. Sarah 11:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not seeking, per se, to be hard-assed about it, but with only half that number of legitimate blocks we've community banned people beforehand. Is anyone going to ArbCom with this, or do we want to do this here and now? ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 20:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since he has already crossed the ArbCom's path, an entry at WP:RFAR may be best. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and this will write itself; or are we waiting for a volunteer or something? ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For now, I would say, let him sit out his block of one month; and let this be a last warning; the actual German topic banning may not have been clearly communicated. I would suggest posting a message on his talkpage stating something like:
 * You are banned from engaging in any type of edits concerning German naming for an indefinite time span. Any breach may result in a block without further discussion. You are also put on indefinite 1RR parole. Incivility of you will be no longer tolerated. Breach of these conditions may lead to an indefinite community ban (ie you being kicked out of the Wiki project). 
 * Or a sinilar warning. If he decides to be disrupitve again after something like that, I will no longer defend him (as I did in the past because he also made many worthwhile edits)Arnoutf 00:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced that further leniency will do any good at all. I have requested a siteban from Arbcom.   If Rex Germanus realizes that his actions have real, lasting consequences, he may change his approach.  A siteban need not be permanent.  If he chooses to take a more constructive approach, we should welcome him to return.  Until then, we should not allow him to continue gaming our processes.  - Jehochman  Talk 00:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's probably best not to get into a block / unblock /reblock etc. situation. Let's let the current one-month block run itself out, then at the next offense it will be indef. Raymond Arritt 01:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Arbcom are familiar with the situation, and should have a chance to decide if this is the final straw, or not. If they choose not to ban him this time, I agree that next time should be an indef. Let's see what they say.  - Jehochman  Talk 01:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(after archiving) An arbitrator has suggested that either the community can place a ban, or we can bring a new Arbcom case.  - Jehochman Talk 04:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet question
I just indef blocked User:IceManReturns as a vandal only account. It is also patently obvious that this account is a sockpuppet of User:IceManNJD, who was blocked for one week on September 22 for precisely the same vandalism. Given that this individual has not edited from the latter account since that block expired, but instead chose to use a sock, what, if anything, should be done about the main account? Resolute 18:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that it's obvious we're dealing with a purposeful, recidivist vandal I'd indefblock both of them. Be sure to hang the appropriate sockpuppet templates on their pages as a convenience for admins dealing with future occurrences, which unfortunately seem likely in this situation. Raymond Arritt 19:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Raymond, could you take care of this yourself? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sock
and are obvious socks of  blocked indef two days ago. All have made the same edit to creationism:,,.  – ornis ⚙ 00:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added suspected sockpuppet tags to the user pages for future reference. Thanks.  Tbo 157   (talk)   (review)  01:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. Should I open a suspected sock report, a RFCU? It seems like a pretty clear cut case of abusive use of socks to evade a block, not to mention 3RR.  – ornis ⚙ 01:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I will put in a report at Suspected sock puppets unless an admin takes any action here as it is quite obvious that these accounts are sockpuppets. Tbo 157   (talk)   (review)  01:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added a report at Suspected sock puppets/Laughing Joker. You may add any additional evidence or comments you have to the page.  Tbo 157   (talk)   (review)  01:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No I reckon, you pretty much summed it up. Thanks for that. It may still be worth a checkuser to turn up any sleepers if at all possible, but perhaps for now it's best to leave it at that till someone with the buttons has had a look.  – ornis ⚙ 01:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems. I don't think checkuser cases would be appropriate in this case.  Checkusers cases are only normally opened when there is constant abuse from multiple suspected sockpuppet accounts with a lack of evidence.  Tbo 157   (talk)   (review)  11:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Bender21345
This user appears to have no understanding of or perhaps respect for image copyrights. He's been warned dozens of times. I propose an indef block, but would like a 2nd opinion. Rklawton 01:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Indefinite might be a bit harsh. I'd support a week (maybe even a month) at first and if he starts again, then indefinite. He did seem to have some good edits a while back but he definitely needs to learn.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't think an indefinite block straight away is appropriate.   Tbo 157   (talk)   <font COLOR="navy">(review)  01:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Personally, I would go with a one to two week block, but that's just me. I think it should be noted that a block is a way to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, and not a punishment. Happy editing, ( <font color="#483C32" face="Verdana">ar <font color="#483C32" face="Verdana">ky ) 02:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * His recent edits overall are odd, changing the photo tag on Norman Mailer, bizarrely resizing an image, and removing a tag without explanation ? I'd say two weeks to a month for all the wierdness. ThuranX 06:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've warned him about his image uploads, and I'll keep an eye on his edits. I've also notified him of this thread. He hasn't edited since. However, if he resumes this pattern, I'll block him in sequence: week, month, 6 months, indef. Rklawton 16:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Probable vandalism related to airline destinations
Recently, there has been a large amount of editing to articles listing airline destinations - Aerolíneas Argentinas destinations is one, as is Air New Zealand destinations, but there are a lot more (and I'm probably not aware of most of them). Basically, somebody keeps adding claims that the airlines are due to start flying somewhere, but the information is never sourced and I can't find information to support them. The editing is mostly by anonymous IPs, which change frequently. The additions are persistent and often implausible enough that I strongly doubt they're good faith, but I thought I'd see what other people thought. Even if it isn't vandalism, I think something needs to be done to stop these numerous unverified additions (which keep getting readded despite requests for evidence). Sorry if this is the wrong place - I'm not too familiar with the process. -- Vardion 05:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been aware of the same issue on international airport articles, eg Auckland International Airport. It's probably the same editor each time. Sometimes I've done mass rollbacks (and never had a complaint), but I worry that I'm going to bite some well-meaning editor who has made a genuine but unsourced update of an airline schedule.- gadfium 06:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There's some sort of SPAM/COI stuff going, if one judges by the edit summaries, which use 'we' in the corrections, see for examples. If it weren't for the '...jesus' endings, I'd be more inclined to assume it's a company man doing it, as is, I'm suspecting it's a sarcastic company guy doing it. ThuranX 06:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Having looked a bit further, I suspect there is at least one genuine contributor in the mess somewhere. However, weeding out these genuine contributions from the repeated insertions of unverified and implausible material is likely to be a challenge. I would also note that the the person adding the non-legitimate stuff seems to know enough about Wikipedia to use the Undo function, and so presumably will have noticed that his/her edits are being reverted with requests for citations. If so, it makes the situation look like deliberate vandalism rather than well-meaning ignorance. -- Vardion 06:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and now they've blanked my user page. -- Vardion 06:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the most recent IP address,, for a week, since their blanking of Vardion's user page was clearly not good faith. I've also added Air New Zealand destinations to my watchlist.- gadfium 08:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Useful new feature
The undeletion process now seems to have an option to invert the selection (ie. change all selected edits into unselected and vice-versa). That is useful. Please pass my thanks to the programmer. Anthony Appleyard 05:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You may thank DerHexer over at Common.js; it's a little bit of javascript added to sysop.js. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 14:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet- 67.94.201.2
67.94.201.2 is a user violating the forbidden uses of sock puppets to avoid scrutiny from other editors. He admitted it. 71.255.81.53 06:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blatantly untrue. The edit you reference was, back then, me telling Angie that I was logging as an anon IP because I had reason to believe I was being Wikistalked under my actual Wikipedia name. It was not "because I was violating the forbidden uses of sockpuppets". And, FYI, the Wikistalking you're doing of me at Meg Griffin and other places IS a violation of Wikipedia policies. 67.94.201.2 09:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing to see here. The edit in question was in June 4, 2007, four months ago.  I recently reviewed WP:SOCK and I frequently check WP:SSP.  It is permitted to login as an alternate account or anon if you're afraid that someone might be harassing you and following your every edit.  That being said, it's impolite to lob accusations at an admin without revealing who you are. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot removed my edit?
I added a "References in popular culture" headlines to the Mutt and Jeff article, but the ClueBot removed it automaticly. Is that not a valid edit? -- Kirjapan 14:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was because it was added material that contained the word "gay". Just revert it.  Though some would say a bot that automatically removed "in popular culture" sections would be a good thing.  E LIMINATOR  JR  15:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The bot does occasionally make mistakes. ClueBot is open to being reverted. Regards,  M er cury    15:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And you might want to let Cobi, who operates the bot, know of the error as he uses this kind of feedback to try to improve the code. Newyorkbrad 16:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This IP went through a large number of baseball articles yesterday, adding sneaky vandalism to all of them (i.e. changing birthplaces and career statistics to subtly incorrect values). Would someone with rollback mind doing the honors? It'd take forever to fix by hand. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. That's nothing much. I once reverted about 70 vandalisms by an impersonator. So about 10 here is not much at all. :D <font face="Arial"><font color="#FF7133">Maxim (talk) (contributions)  15:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Need assistance educating user about RfC protocol
User:Duke53 is the subject of an RfC that I opened. He has tried to respond inline to the statements made instead of using his own Response section. I undid his first comment and dropped him a note about the proper procedure so he could put it in the right place, but it doesn't seem to have been heeded. I'm uncomfortable with undoing any more of his responses, or moving them, since I'm an involved party. Could a neutral admin please help Duke53 make sure his responses end up in the right spot? I'm asking for an admin rather than any uninvolved editor because I think Duke53's more likely to take the admin's word on how to conduct an RfC. Thanks, alanyst /talk/ 15:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for outside views on administrative action
Moved to WP:AN. M er cury   18:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat from Ampcometal
User:Ampcometal has sent me a legal threat by email regarding my edits to Unified numbering system. He made no attempt to resolve the issue through discussion. I believe that WP:SUE indicates he should be blocked and I should withdraw from further editing to that page until the legal issue is resolved, is that correct?--Yannick 17:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest just ignoring the emails. Unless a user is making threats onwiki, it is extremely difficult to confirm that threats are actually being made. --- RockMFR 17:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can forward the email if you would like. It came from an address @ampcometal.com. I don't feel I can ignore this threat, and I would like to see the admins uphold policy.--Yannick 17:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If the user is e-mailing you through the "e-mail this user" button, don't respond and that user will not get your e-mail address. 1 != 2  18:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, it's too late. I advertise my real name on my user page, and Ampcometal found my email address elsewhere on the internet. Secondly, hiding behind pseudonyms is a childish way to deal with legal issues, and would likely prove ineffective before the courts.--Yannick 18:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I've blocked Ampcometal for obviously promotional username. Max S em 18:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

LART request
Any chance of an admin having a word with Jozzage for this little fit of pique. These sort of things make New Page Patrol so worthwhile and enjoyable. He's so wound up he even thinks I'm American. :) <font color="#000000">WebHamste <font color="#0000ff">r  00:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno, an account which has done little more than repeatedly submitted the same article for an unnotable band, then repeatedly (again) drops the f-bomb because he doesn't like the response deserves more than a simple "don't do this again or else" message. Based on this clear evidence, I blocked him for a month; review welcome. (And some people say above that I mollicoddle the troublemakers...) -- llywrch 01:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, strong support. He's been nowhere near civil and he's not even attempting to learn why he article got deleted.  Hopefully, he acts a little more contrite when he returns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. These little outbursts don't actually bother me, in truth the mental images they instigate have me chuckling, but I wouldn't want my thick skin allowing them to think they can get away with it. <font color="#000000">WebHamste <font color="#0000ff">r 01:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed Mr.Z-man has extended this user's block to indefinite. I guess it is safe to conclude from this incident that "You suck" is not a reason for being unblocked. (No points if you can't tell my tone of voice here.) -- llywrch 20:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:SugerMagnoliaBOT
Someone may want to look at User:SugerMagnoliaBOT, it looks like it nom'ed Philadelphia for AfD on it's own  Yng  varr  00:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He/she/it has been indef blocked. --Haemo 00:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to how it possibly could have seen Philadelphia as an Article For Deletion . . . - Warthog Demon  00:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing some experienced vandal created a vandal-only account that impersonates a bot to try to disrupt Wikipedia. Its probably not an actual bot... -- Hdt 83     <font color="brown" face="Arial">Chat 00:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that seems to be the case. - Warthog Demon  00:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It didn't have a bot flag; it was simply a misleading username per Username policy. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman bum and angel 00:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A user's insulting and confrontational behavior
The background is a problematic and tendentious editor whose behavior needs the attention of the wider community. He is currently the subject of a complaint at Wikiquette alerts (I'm not involved) and has exhibited "bullying" behavior at both Talk:Larry_Seidlin and Talk:Taxi_%28TV_series%29 (his first response to the complaint at wikiquette was this comment). My involvement and BD at Larry Seidlin talkpage (Disclaimer, fyi, my involvement, etc.) I first ran across BD at village pump and noticed his confrontational and slightly hostile comments there (everybody's 'stupid' plus Z-man doesn't read and BD cites international law, sort of). Due to his comments, I added one of the pages he edits to my watchlist (Larry_Seidlin). I discovered that he really wants that article deleted, I don't know why, but it is a crusade of his (If you think I exaggerate, see the talk page).

Feeling bad about the way User:Prgrmr@wrk was being treated (and, so far, typical for how Bamadude interacts with just about everyone), I finally made a comment and it went thusly:
 * Bamadude calls R. Baley's comment "smart-ass" and encourages him/her to follow "the bouncing ball," he also encourages Baley to "make sense next time" (Both comments in diff).
 * Next 2 comments, R. Baley's reply is somewhat short, but indicates wish to drop until real AfD discussion. Bamadude's response. . .well just click.  This response was something about 1st Ammendment rights and how R. Baley is almost "cool" beyond belief.
 * Next, Bamadude, re-factors his response in the discussion between R. Baley and himself. Bamadude "apologizes" for being "pissed" at R. Baley's "ignorance" (Or ignorance in general -presumably RB's- diff). and. ..
 * No longer "cool," R. Baley is now a "dolt" (Response to RB's note on the talk page that discussion had been re-factored (RB's refactor comment and BD's dolt comment both both here). Also noted: R. Baley might be a Republican!?

Summary Since the complaint at Wikiquette alerts (nothing to do with above diffs, those problems have to do with the Taxi talkpage), Cheeser1, has been handling almost everything (so far) him/herself. This situation is a time sink and shouldn't be shouldered by just one editor. I would have intervened more myself, but thought that my interaction would just inflame the situation (full disclosure: I did remove 1 section as inappropriate to the Taxi talk page here because I thought CF had had enough). I believe this situation should receive wider attention, so I'm bringing it here to ANI. I know it's long, but thanks for any consideration, R. Baley 09:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The diffs given here are from last month and aren't really actionable. In theory the current conflict (over on Wikiquette alerts and the Taxi talk page) should be resolved now with the image deleted as a copyvio, Bamadude willing to concede that content dispute, and the personal attacks removed from User:Bamadude. – Steel 16:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Steel, thanks for looking in to the current situation. I should have been more clear that my interaction was from the end of September, but I thought that it was significant in that it demonstrated a recurring problem.  Btw, I agree with your declining to protect the page as premature (though I have some reservations about deleting the user page on principle due to the non-specific nature of the complaints/attacks).  I thought his last gesture, wherein everybody accepts blame and drops all issues, was inadequate, and that the situation would be ongoing.  My only request is that if the situation wrt the civility issues are not resolved, is that C1 and CF receive some community support.  R. Baley 19:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Besides being extraordinarily confrontational, I think Bamadude has a problem understanding WP:V. He has repeatedly attacked other editors for removing or changing sources, asserting that WP:V requires the source to somehow be "easy" to verify (ie an online source or image, instead of a published secondary source like a book). He went so far as to upload a copyrighted source to Wikipedia for the purposes of proving himself right in a content dispute. When I was draw into the dispute, due to his uncivil behavior being reported on the WQA, I took immediate note of this fact and went about removing the images - blatant copyvio. And then he starts directing his inappropriate behavior at me. He also misunderstands WP:NPOV - he attacked me for not being "neutral" and "taking sides" in the WQA dispute - I don't know what that even means! It was a valid complaint against him. So I told him to be more civil. All in all, this user is seriously unpleasant, but alot of it seems to be a result of his poor understanding of policies. --Cheeser1 19:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I also note that his ability to use a talk page is poor. He interrupts himself days later to add more stuff, and shoves it between older comments, jumps up and down the sections instead of presenting reasoned responses, and seems unable to let any part of a conversation die. It's not conducive to actually getting consensus, but reads (with diffculty) like he's desperate to continually fend off all comers. It made reading that talk page, as linked above, blinding, and I have to bounce up and down and after about 15 minutes, I just stopped trying. ThuranX 21:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(general comment) I notice that he hasn't edited since I posted the ANI notice, which is atypical for him. I just wanted to say that it was not my intention to start a "pile-on" until he gives up editing altogether (if that is indeed the final outcome, hard to see the future is. . .). I really just wanted the condescending tone of his remarks to stop. The ideal outcome here is an acknowledgement/apology of the insulting nature of his past comments, and future editing where such comments aren't made (and BD being more receptive to collaboration and community feedback). I'm not sure how to make that happen, or if it's worth it. I am pretty sure that any appeal to BD made by me are likely to 'fall on deaf ears'. Thoughts? R. Baley 22:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How to proceed will depend entirely on what happens when Bamadude arrives. – Steel 23:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Bingodile
Keeps adding massive trivial information to The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (video game)‎, and completely ignores WP:TRIVIA. Has also broken the 3RR rule. The Prince of Darkness 18:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reverted their edit again, per WP:GAMEGUIDE, and they haven't re-added, they may have gone for now--Jac16888 19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a run-of-the-mill content dispute (and not even a good one). Not even close to a 3RR violation, and no attempts to discuss the changes on the talk page by either party.  This does not involve administrators in any way.  Take it to the talk page and read WP:3RR before making frivolous claims.  Thanks.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  19:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

vandalism in Turkish people article
Some people insert pseudo-scientific and nationalist statements into the article, without any reliable sources: The problem was already discussed in Talk:Turkish people. I have once again removed the wrong and nationalist claims and restored the original version: An admin should take a look at it and maybe protrect the page for a while. --82.83.156.11 21:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Vandalism should be reported on WP:AIV. One instance of vandalism a day is not reason for protection. EconomicsGuy 21:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not only vandalism a day. This has been going on for months: --82.83.151.191 23:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it seems more like a content dispute to me, especially after reading the talk page as well. I will, however, admit that it seems like you guys are edit/revert warring and frankly it also seems like you are the one doing most of the reverting. Maybe it should be protected at the wrong version until a consensus is reached on the talk page. EconomicsGuy 00:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What is Paste doing?
is in the process of adding notability tags dated a month ago and afd templates to random articles about schools. I know this because I watch the article for St Winifred's Roman Catholic Primary School (those of British Christmas number 1 fame) and was about to comment to them that an afd for this article was unlikely to be successful, given the school's notability. However I think there may be something much bigger going on here, seeing as the same user appears to have taken offence at a school article they have created being nominated for deletion, and decided to alert the admins instead. I hope this was the right place to come. -- Roleplayer 21:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If the St Winifred's one is anything to go by then all he's been doing is inserting the afd tag at the top of the page, but not completing the process. Of the long list of article's he's done it to none of them have shown up on the Oct 14th AfD log. I've deleted the St Winifred's tag as bad faith and uncompleted so the AfD discussion never started., but it looks like an admin will need to intervene for the other 41 school articles he's done it to. It looks like he's just gone through a template listing and tagged all of them. It looks like WP:POINT is getting a workout in this case. <font color="#000000">WebHamste <font color="#0000ff">r  22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The number of articles he or she has tagged without any discussion whatsoever is alarming. He or she is also tagging them incorrectly saying that they have been tagged since September when they were added today.
 * I also dropped him or her a line asking him or her to come here and explain what's going on. --ElKevbo 00:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Netmonger re-creating deleted box from MfD
I am reporting user for having re-created this userbox which was deleted on the recent MfD here. Previously, he has been blocked here for sending me harassing messages to my talk page and e-mail and was blocked again here for harassing me again and on similar charges. Twice his block was shortened on good faith under the conditions that he does not engage in such behavior again. However, it seems that he has not taken the blocking admins seriously. Therefore, I humbly request for this matter to be looked into. Thank you. Wiki Raja 21:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It maybe of importance to note User Netmonger has a sockpuppet case opened here . Sinhala freedom 22:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppeting looks obvious and the disruption looks obvious. Should be blocked as such.--Crossmr 23:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef. Refer to this thread below. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  00:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Polygamy4
I have found a new sockpuppet. User:203.192.91.4 is obviously a sockpuppet of User:Polygamy4 and I am guessing that User:Big5Hunter is also a sock. His contributions, IP style, and writing style are evidence enough. See Suspected sock puppets/Polygamy4 for information about him. His main accounts are currently blocked, as should these new socks. Dtm142 21:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He was told he needed a different username. He's switched from polygamy to hunting.   The IP is probably just him forgetting to login.  The fellow seems a bit disoriented, but he isn't doing anything particularly horrible or disruptive, is he? If he is, diffs please. - Jehochman  Talk 01:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See the block logs of User:Polygamistx4 and a former IP. He also flamed Wikipedians and the ability to block here.  He's been indefinitely blocked, so these new sockpuppets fall under block evasion. Dtm142 02:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've indefed Big5Hunter because I agree that they are almost certainly the same person. Big5Hunter has been POV pushing  and made at least one horrific BLP violation.  That IP address is in Australia.  I am wondering if it might be an open proxy. Reported to WikiProject on open proxies for investigation. - Jehochman  Talk 04:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He continues to vandalize the article Frank de Jong. J 23:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refer to WP:AIV for prompt actions next time. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  23:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked IP 24 hours for egregious vandalism. - Jehochman Talk 23:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Pornography in the sandbox
has been posting porography in the sandbox quite a bit latley. See contribs. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked by FayssalF. &mdash;Cryptic 00:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Lustful anon with a dynamic IP
As you can see a few cases above, an anon was posting porn in the sandbox. He has come back to vandalize my userpage and post more porn. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like the user has been blocked. See . -- B 01:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Martial arts and administration
It has been suggested that I need a nice roundhouse kick to the skull for some of the administration tasks I've done lately. Apparently, I was supposed to block someone indefinitely for a faulty sockpuppet report. Since I didn't do so, and since I decided to call the reporting user's edits into question, I'm supposed to receive a roundhouse kick to the head, and I'm supposed to apologize afterwards.

Here's my question: If I've been knocked to the floor by a roundhouse kick, how long would it take me to recover from the injuries before I could apologize to ? Does a roundhouse kick often cause a concussion? Are there any other admins who have been the unfortunate recipient of a roundhouse kick and who have apologized as a result? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have requested that User:Tyler Warren retract the statement. And I will indef block him until such time as the statement is retracted. I suggest he be given a short amount of time to comply (say 12 hours) until the expiry of his current block to comply. -- Flyguy649 talk 04:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that he is already blocked until October 18. But of course if he doesn't retract the comment by then, an indef would be appropriate. -- B 04:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism fad on GameFAQs
It appears as though GameFAQs' Super Smash Bros. Brawl board has taken vandalizing Wikipedia to be a fad. Look, for instance, at these edits to Charizard which correspond to this GameFAQs thread. Also have a look at these edits to List of EarthBound characters, which correspond to this GameFAQs topic. I'm not sure where else they have stricken, but the Ness thread refers to it as a fad. Is there anything that can be done about this?  You Can '  t See Me!  04:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can keep an eye on the SSB:B board, but not much else. If there were a GameFAQs moderator who was a user here that would make things easier. Wizardman  04:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've blocked User:HawkofPrey which appears to be a vandal-only account which is part of this effort. Will continue to monitor as well.  Citi Cat  <sup style="color:#000000;"> ♫ 05:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson
I severely wonder about this admin's sanity. He has just deleted images from my user page without prior notice. This is not the first time he's done this, and there is a history here. I'll accept policy if it's explained, but not if it's done maliciously. Caution is OK, malice and bad faith are not. If this is not the appropriate forum, please advise, and I'll take it to where it belongs. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 03:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You cannot place non-free use images in userspace. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I severely wonder about MY OWN sanity! MessedRocker (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I don't think Rodhullandemu posted here looking for an explanation as to why the images were deleted (it's already been explained to him). I think he's complaining aboutwhat he sees as a lack of communication/courtesy on the admin's part.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the user seems to think the removal of the images was in retaliation for an odd message he left me. See this.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 03:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, discussion can never hurt, as evidenced here. <tt>^_^;;</tt> --Iamunknown 05:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nods, fair use for full copyrighted images doesn't cover userspace. Durova Charge! 05:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse deletion, clearly. Fair use galleries in userspace is a speedy deletion criterion, so no discussion or assent is needed.  Daniel  10:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse but note that posting a note up-front can be useful to reassure and explain in a number of cases; non-communication is a common source of resentment, suspicion, and bad faith and as can be seen it ended up taking an explanation anyhow. FT2 (Talk 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would advise you to read this for more information about the use of fair use images in userspace.  Melsaran  (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by User:Taprobanus
, who I have never had any contact with on Wikipedia in the past, has filed a sock puppet case accusing practically everyone who edits Sri Lanka related articles as been a sockpuppet of Lahiru k, including me. He has demonstrated an extensive knowledge of happenings related Sri Lankan articles, referencing edits that happened last year, even though he has never edited any of the articles he mentions. This led me to doubt the authenticity of this account.

Reading the SSP case he filed, it becomes pretty obvious as to whom the actual owner of the account is. In one place of the case he says,


 * "User:Iwazaki began to follow me around in my edits  [|here] and [|here these are couple of examples only."

He directly says Iwazaki followed him (i.e. Sumoeagle179) around, and linked to two past versions of two articles as proof. What he linked to were
 * The 12:19, January 6, 2007 revision of the Padahuthurai bombing article, after Iwazaki made his first edit to the page. Up to that time the only other editor of the article was Taprobanus, who had created the article a few hours before. If Iwazaki did following someone's edits to find the article, it could only have been Taprobanus.
 * The 01:16, January 7, 2007 revision of the Mylanthanai massacre, after Iwazaki's second edit to the article. Upto then, the only other editors to the article were Lahiru k, who Sumoeagle179 is accusing Iwazaki of being a sockpuppet of, and, Taprobanus, who created the article a few days before.

In both instances, the only editor who Iwazaki could have been accused of stalking was Taprobanus, and the account Sumoeagle179 has zero contributions to any of those articles, so when he says "User:Iwazaki began to follow me around in my edits" it seems obvious he actually meant Iwazaki was following his other account around. --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 22:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * User who is accused of sock puppetry, has chosen to delete the tag placed on his page, without any recent checkuser evidence for or against the case.  Just looking at what snowolfd4 is talking about, Sumoefagle merely appended his comment to an existing report that was launched by Taprobanus a long while ago, hence the mix up.  This seems to be the original case filed .  If you look carefully at the report , sumofeagle has added a label to indicate it was text from the previous report.  Sinhala freedom 22:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I can see at first sight, the passage picked out by Snowolfd4 as incriminating is not really something Sumoeagle is saying about himself; he is quoting an earlier SSP report that was indeed filed by Taprobanus, and in whose context those sentences make sense. So, forget about that part. I haven't looked into the rest of this affair yet, but I'm getting the impression that we need bans all round, for several people on both sides of this conflict, and sooner rather than later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nowhere has he said he was pasting Taprobanus's comments to the case. It also doesn't not explain how an account which has been completely uninvolved in the articles mentioned (in the rest of his case) suddenly got such extensive knowledge about them. Becuase I can't emphasize this enough, Sumoeagle179 has never edited any of the articles he mentioned, and has never been involved with the editors he has filed the case against. --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This looks like yet another chapter in the machinations of Sri Lankan civil war conflict. I support topic bans for a number of the involved users, since they've turned this encyclopedia into an all out battlefield.  The report Snowolf discusses here might have merit, but I don't think the posited quotes show that he's a sockpuppet of the user who is being accused.  However, he definitely looks suspicious.  Look at the other reports on this board for yet more examples of the kind of tit-for-tat reportism that goes on over this topic.  It's way, way too complicated for anyone to cleanly sort out, and short of blocking and banning users from Sri Lanka related topics we're not going to get any closure here.  Most users are simply not interested in cooling off the conflict, and instead are engaged in a kind of editorial brinksmanship to see if they can goad, cajole, canvassing, and accuse each other into getting blocked.  --Haemo 23:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, absolutely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto. It is really tiresome and harsh measures should be taken. There's no other way to deal w/ this mess. I have to add that Snowolfd4 can refer to WP:RFCU using the "G" code as this is not the appropriate place for us to verify sockpuppetry. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  23:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd send them all straight to Arbcom, if it wasn't for the fact that Arbcom is currently bogged down to the point of having become completely dysfunctional. We'd probably get a resolution only in two or three months time, if at all. I guess we'd better sort this out at the community level. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * True. Usually, most sockpuppets are created and more disruption and edit warring happen during ArbCom hearings. Here you get the third admin to suggest topic bans for the few edit warriors. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  23:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If we're going to start taking action, I think this is clear-cut enough to be definitive. Is a checkuser necessary, or do we have enough information to move?  --Haemo 23:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So User:Lahiru_k is User:Mystìc is User:222.165.157.129 is User:Netmonger. And allllllllllllllllll of those accounts relate to User:Snsudharsan, User:Psivapalan, User:Sri119, User:Mama007 and User:Ajgoonewardene.
 * Ok, Lahiru K has just left wikipedia for abusing editing privileges by using multiple accounts for more than a year now. Whose next? -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  23:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And netmonger ? Watchdogb 00:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * He's also left this place. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  00:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Snowolf4 and Iwazaki have removed their sock tags here and here. I can see where Snowolf4 may not be a sockpuppett of Lahiru_k, but he could still be a meatpuppett. I still think Kaushini is a sockpupptt of Lahiru-u. See the SSP case for details. And yes, the quote was a paste from the first SSP case earlier this year, I wasn't talking to Snowolf4 or anyone else. I agree this whole Sri lankan civil war case should go to the community board for review. Sumoeagle179 00:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It also looks definitive that User:Kaushini is a sockpuppet of User:Lahiru k, based on the evidence gathered, and these two diffs. I'm indef blocking User:Kaushini as well.  --Haemo 01:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the abuse of administrative privileges at it's most ridiculous. So much for your promise earlier to keep neutral in these matters, Haemo. I'm already discussing with FayssalF about his antics.
 * About User:Kaushini, do you know what Gateway, the ISP is? It's an education institution in Sri Lanka. The two edits are you use as proof are edits by the IP from September 1, 2006 (by Kaushini) and May 21, 2007 (by Lahiru). That is the ONLY proof you have that the two users are the same. Further, that IP has made tons of edits before either Lahiru and Kaushini started editing Wikipedia. Do you think you are going to get away with blocking everyone who edits Wikipedia from Gateway as a sockpuppet?
 * So I suggest you unblock User:Kaushini and seriously consider your biases in editing Wikipedia before this goes any further, where the fact that you are admins has little relevance. --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 02:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So, it's just a whopping coincidence that all three share IP? I don't think so.  This is 100% coincident with a single user having a "home IP" and a "school IP", which he uses to sockpuppet with.  --Haemo 02:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, now put your money where your mouth is and prove Netmonger used the IP 203.115.31.180. --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 02:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Did I say that? No, I didn't.  I'm asserting that the circumstances are that Netmonger, Mystic, and Laihru all edited from the same personal IP.  Laihru and Kaushini edited from the same school IP address.  The story this is telling me is that Laihru, a known sockpuppeteer, used his home address to run one set of sockpuppets, and a school IP to run the other sets.  We've seen it before, and we'll see it again.  --Haemo 02:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You can add to this that said school IP address has fewer than 50 edits total, of which many relate to Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan topics. --Haemo 02:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * An IP from a Sri Lankan school edited articles about Sri Lanka? How surprising? --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 02:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your assumptions of bad faith in this case are astounding. Are you saying that only one person could have ever edited Wikipedia from the Gateway school? What other proof do you have that Lahiru is the same as Kaushini? --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 02:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that a duck is a duck. This IP address has a handful of contributions &mdash; in fact, fewer than 40.  In four of them (10%) the IP is acting as Kaushini around September 2006.  In an earlier the same year the IP works on an article Laihru created only 3 hours ago.  In early 2007, the IP acts as Laihru, this time signing for him.  In the meantime, it occasionally edits Wikipedia showing a pro-Sri Lankan  opinion, familiarity with many "advanced" user abilities.  The concept that this IP, with only a handful of edits just-so happened to be used by a known sockpuppeteer and then another unrelated user in exactly the same topic area, with similar opinions is beyond coincidence.  Sri Lanka is not that small.  --Haemo 02:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All you are doing is admitting that all you have is your speculation on your part. Two editors go to the same school, and they are sockpuppets? That's ridiculous. So answer this. Why has he not used it since November last year?
 * Sri Lanka is not that small? EXACTLY. There could be more that one person in the same school editing Wikipedia. How hard is it for you to get that into your mind? --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 03:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Summarizing the evidence as you just did is disingenuous and incorrect. In the anonymous world of internet communication, this is the most solid evidence we can get.  Even a positive checkuser could only confirm that they used the same IP addresses; something we have already confirmed.  The standard here is beyond a reasonable doubt; I think that is clearly established in this case.  The odds that from a purportedly public terminal there would be only 30-odd edits, of which a good third are from two supposedly different users, who edit in identical subject areas, with similar points of view are very, very low &mdash; especially when one of those users has already been determined to use sockpuppets to support his point of view.  --Haemo 03:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please explain to me why then there is a 5 month break in this IP? If this is used by a school and people usually edit wikipedia from there, then why is there a 5 month break in this IP adress. What happened there ? Watchdogb 03:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To further add to Haemo take a look here where Lahir created the article and then the IP edits it. To make thinks more clear, lahiru also does the same edit as the IP did, namely adding the Inter wiki link. Lahiru adds the inter wiki link just like the IP does Watchdogb 03:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Also take a look at this. Again the same IP makes an edit in between Lahiru's edits but not at the same time (days in difference). Taking a closer look at the IP edit it amazingly knows what Lahiru meant when he talked about American MOH. It's a clear cut case of sock puppet usage. Watchdogb 03:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks guys for doing the sock blocks. This leaves us with the rest of the Sri Lankan problem: two factions of editors who seem to be doing little else but fighting each other. Who's left? User:Wiki Raja, User:Iwazaki, User:Taprobanus, User:Snowolfd4, User:Watchdogb, anybody else? I don't doubt some or all of these may be good-faith and potentially productive contributors, but with all their fighting, their net effect on the project is negative. Should we consider topic bans? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The blocks of those couple sock accounts may have an effect on how the rest of editors would behave starting today. I suggest we would keep an eye and any further violation of any kind would result in a topic ban. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  09:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Insulting and funny comment made about my account. However, I will assume good faith. Anyways, since fut and Fay are inclined to make the editors cease edit war I sure hope you will find some time giving third opinions. Specially because RFC is another slow process that might not help until edit war is over via a locked article. Watchdogb 13:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I woke up today in Sunny Canada to find out that I have been accused of being a sock puppet. Well now that things have cooled down and unfortunately my good net friend who ever operated Lahiru_K account is banned, I want to make it clear that I have shown my good faith to cease edit warring by being one of original founders of Sri Lankan reconciliation project. Our intention was to find compromise using wiki rules instead of fighting it out. Alas like all attempts at reconciliation, this attempt too seems to have failed in this case. I hope more Sri Lanka centric editors would become members of it and discuss differences of opinion and resolve them without distracting the entire community. Just a few admins seems to have resolved this problem with bold action. Kudos to them. I just hope someone like this will resolve the real Sri Lankan civil war in Sri Lanka.:))) Thanks Taprobanus 15:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Rubbersoul20 - Persistent harassment/uncivility, OR, POV, {fact} removal
For three months, has been edit-warring on Latin American literature for adding unsourced/OR/POV/weasel, then when it was reluctantly accepted but tagged {fact} or {refimprove}, he just kept 	on deleting the tags. It's not content dispute since he just doesn't follow basic policy and guidelines.

His talk page shows he's blanked his talk page after a block for harassment and a vandalism warning, and has been moving AFD tags too, so that's a habit. Another user tried to discuss with him on his talk page and the article's talk page, but he just got told he was a penis with a piped link to the graphic picture.


 * Sample of tags removal from August to today: (POV/weasel list he's untagged ever since)

Self-involvement: I am actually a recent contributor to this article, and after today's new revert war I noticed with horror how this had been going on for months in the article history. Except for one resistant, the other contributors that could been seen in the history before August 2007 have all left the building... &mdash; Komusou talk @ 08:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I warned him about the user talk conduct (which he followed by blanking) but I'll leave the article edits for another day someone else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection for review
I've IAR'd semiprotecting Turkic peoples against the persistent attacks of an anonymous IP user who insists on introducing an image propagating the nationalist organisation Grey Wolves, against clear consensus of several other users. The IP never discusses, never gives reasons in edit summaries, just reverts blindly. His only talk contributions have been nationalist insults. I've protected even though I was previously involved in the reverting; therefore bringing it here for review. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, it's a tough one as this wasn't vandalism, it was a content dispute and by semi protecting the article, you have allowed autoconfirmed users to win the edit war. I would have preferred to see more discussion with the IP's in question as there's seems to be very little so far. Perhaps a report to WP:AN/3RR would have been better (I know it hasn't really broken 3RR, but it had over a number of days). I just don't like the idea of semi protecting to win an edit war.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  09:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I accept your point in principle, but in this case it had become abundantly clear the anon was not a legitimate contributor. This was going on for over three weeks, and the only contribution of the anon to the talk page was this:, (besides [, ], just today), plus abusive summaries like these , ('go f**k your mother'),  ('you idiot, you don't have the power to remove the Grey Wolves, give it up') Of course an AN3 report could have resulted in a block, but since he's a dynamic IP and almost certainly willing to dodge our rules, that wouldn't have stopped him and semiprotection would again have been the only solution. -- In the meantime, another admin has replaced my "involved" protection with his "uninvolved" one, I see. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] ☼ 10:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have just warned the IP for using innapropriate edit summaries thus reminding them to be civil and asking them to use the talk page before blocking if they don't listen. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  10:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There had in fact been ample warnings of that kind, to which the only response, as I now see, was this. I feel my only mistake here has been that I tried to engage this guy as a good-faith editor yesterday, entering into a dispute with him in the belief that this might be possible. If I'd been fully aware of the previous history, I'd have simply intervened as an uninvolved admin from the outset (because that's what I was until that moment), and I could have legitimately blocked/protected in whatever way necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ohh! and the warning (i'd say the requests) to use the talk page resulted in incivility. Well, then i totally support the semi-protection especially that the IP is dynamic. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  10:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Over-zealous vandal-fighter
We have acquired an energetic new vandal-fighter in the form of User:TheUNOFFICIALvandalpolice (formerly User:TheVandalPolice). However, their edit comments and comments to reverted editors are over-zealous in the extreme. Several other editors have asked them to moderate their comments, to no avail. I'm beginning to think that if they continue like this, they may become more part of the problem (particularly relating to WP:BITE) than part of the solution. -- Karada 10:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let the cop stay in the office for a while before getting out to the streets. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  10:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think it's a username violation personally, but I also agree his vandal fighting skills aren't really on. I've just warned him about it and if he continues as he has been, it is unfortunate that I may have to block him to stop this.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  10:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * His/her contribution is helpful, but the way (s)he is doing is like engaging the war. Per WP:INSULT, I think (s)he needs to cool down for a few hours until (s)he can manage to unlock the CAPS-LOCK button and reading through WP:VANDAL policies. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 10:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes and that's why i showed them how our Can't sleep, clown will eat me works. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  11:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the user's opposition to vandalism is admirable but their methods leave much to be desired. Most vandalism on Wikipedia is a juvenile prank and stops when another user drops by to say "Don't do that". Giving an angry and aggressive message (whether in all caps or not) is more likely to encourage a fighting response, and may therefore aggravate the vandalism and not control it. Sam Blacketer 11:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've advised him on a different method he could adopt when reverting vandalism, hopefully he will change his ways and maybe become a valued vandal fighter.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  11:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All I've got to say is, when you think you've seen everything. I hope he calms down because I can't imagine having to stop someone for being too aggressive with vandals. That's a new one for sure. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable, we beat bodies go down and get our hands dirty while the top brass sits around twiddling their thumbs thinking up new reasons on why we should be nice to vandals.

With respect to WP:BITE, I try to ensure that any user I warn was clearly vandalising, example posting a chat log over an article, example saying that wind farms operated off “human gas”. These people are not newbies making a simple mistake, they are hardened vandals who want to undermine the integrity of wikipedia.

With respect to WP:Vandal I am well aware of what constitutes vandalism and if anyone can point out where I labelled an edit as being when it wasn’t then I will happily retract any criticism and make a personal apology to the editor.

With respect to WP:Insult, this is an essay filled with original research. The fact that a number of the users I have reverted and/or warned have not continued to vandalise just shows that taking a hard stance against those who wish to disrupt the project.

With respect to people making excusing for vandals in claiming I was “baiting” them, please read above and consider that if I was out to cause harm to the project there are easier ways to do it.

With respect to the templates they remove the personal force that accompanies the messages and often they fail to cut to the chase (saying a person was only testing when it is clear they knew they were vandalising).

With respect to other vandal fighters, I acknowledge that they have their ways of doing things but this is by no means a tried and tested method. The continuing influx of vandals just goes to show that a more authoritative stance is required.

With respect to people who don’t like my caps lock please see that I only use it against the scum vandals in order to make it clear we do not appreciate their edits.

With respect to people who don’t like my username, I make it quite clear (with capital letters) that I am the unofficial vandal police and that I have a disclaimer on my main user page.

I must say I am quite shocked to see some established editors supporting the plight of vandalism. We must not bow down to the beliefs that people vandalise wikipedia because they had a bad childhood or because they couldn’t afford the latest computer game, we must continue to take a hard stance against those who seek to add misinformation and remove valid facts and undermine the integrity of the project.

That said my shift is almost finished, I’ve been editing under IP addresses and two accounts. Hopefully the guys who patrol the next beat will continue to take a hard stance against vandalism without excessive interference from the upper brass.

the UNOFFICIAL vandal policeBang Bang 11:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay I really think you need to calm down. You are not a police officer, no administrator is. Even if you were, the job of a police officer is to talk not shout. We don't work in police shifts, wikipedia isn't a beat, and there is no upper brass. Admins are vandal fighters are just volunteers who preen the more unwanted aspects of wikipedia and try to keep it readable and useful to everyone as a resource or information. You might want to adjust your attitude slightly, as you come across as very provocative, attacking and insulting to some people. Calling vandals "scum" isn't acceptable now is it? SGGH speak! 11:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I do everything in my power to remain civil towards regular editors who wish to make genuine contributions to the encyclopedia. Vandals on the other hand are not deserving of the same respect, as they seek only to disrupt and add vulgar information in the hope of amusing their friends. As far as I’m concerned, and I think many editors will agree with me, editors who knowingly vandalise are scum, and I see no problem with calling it as it is. As for being “insulting” towards these vandals, keeping in mind that I will only call vandalism where it is true vandalism then quite frankly if they find the hard line stance insulting and go somewhere else then the best situation has come about. the UNOFFICIAL vandal policeBang Bang 11:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. Please understand that appreciate your efforts against vandalism, and we're just trying to help you be more effective by denying attention to vandals and not biting the newbies. Please help us by modulating the tone of your remarks to other users, per WP:CIVIL, and you'll find that you will rapidly become a welcome member of the team. It would be a great shame if you got blocked for over-zealousness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karada (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thankyou, but I believe taking a hard line stance against vandalism is better than worrying about the feelings of the perpetrators. You can be assured that I will only call vandalism where it actually exits, and in my mind WP:CIVIL does not apply in its fullest extent to those who wish to undermine the integrity of the encyclopedia, if they run away because they feel insulted then all the better for us. the UNOFFICIAL vandal policeBang Bang 11:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You can be right but i believe that most admins who approached you and gave you advices have more experience w/ vandalism than you have. So please listen to them as your efforts are positive and needed but not the way you do it. Would it be hard for you to turn off your CAPS, avoid insults and still be more effective w/ your tasks? -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  11:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's try another police analogy. If someone is stopped for a traffic infraction, is the officer not resolutely polite, calm, and professional, even in the face of abuse? The goal is de-escalation, not fuelling the fire. A degree of bland detachment almost always works better than rage.   Acroterion  (talk)  12:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Out of the tens of thousands of things that annoy me about Wikipedia, vandalism probably tops the list. Warning a user and discussing possible blocks for his or her attempts to combat this problem are...well, let's just say it's typical of the Wikipedian mentality and leave it at that. But I will say I am glad that this user is trying to make the encyclopedia easier to edit for constructive users. Until Wikipedia changes its policies and restricts editing to only registered users, I think we should support anyone who tries to stop vandals (but that human gas wind farm edit was kind of funny :-D ). Jeffpw 12:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We all support what he is doing but we don't support the way he does it. The outcome could be the same whether he uses CAPS, harsh edit summaries or not. He is a newbie and we are giving him advices but it seems that he is arguing too much about something which he can do better. WP:CIVIL applies also when fighting vandalism. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  12:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not going to add to the policeman analogies, as you are not a policeman, those whose edits you revert are not criminals, the admins and other editors here are not "top brass" and you are not a hardworking flatfoot fighting to do your job despite the efforts of PC deskbound jonnies who don't understand your effective yet unorthadox methods of policing.... Instead this is an online encyclopedia created and edited by volunteers...
 * You say "You can be assured that I will only call vandalism where it actually exits, and in my mind WP:CIVIL does not apply in its fullest extent to those who wish to undermine the integrity of the encyclopedia, if they run away because they feel insulted then all the better for us." However, if you look on your talkpage you have already admitted one of the vandal "scum" you warn was nor actually a vandal. Your incivility there was therefore completely unwarranted even by your own standards. I wouls suggest that you listen to the advice that has been offered to you. '' •C H ILL DO UBT•      12:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Did this editor just admit to sockpuppeting? See comment above, "I’ve been editing under IP addresses and two accounts."  The name is a problem.  It conveys (correctly in this case) a loose cannon, vigilante attitude.  Putting myself in the shoes of a newbie user who needs to learn the ropes, I would resent and not heed anyone who calls themselves "vandal police" and presumes to school me on the rules of Wikipedia.  The defiant tone adopted towards more experienced editors here troubles me.  We ought to be reasonably mature and professional, and not go about things with a chip on the shoulder.  This whole things casts us in a bad light.Wikidemo 12:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think one of the IPs they use may possibly be User:58.164.7.68 this IP has very similar edit summaries (all caps, some starting with "BANG BANG". I may be wrong but it certainly looks possible. MorganaFiolett 12:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He's definetely the same. Check the sign "=" in both edit summaries, . However, there's nothing wrong w/ that as the IP stopped editing once the account was created. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  13:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In which case, User:The_Anome has apparently had some dealings with them under a previous account name (see the comment the IP made on my talk page). MorganaFiolett 13:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

<-- This is not vandalism, and the edit summary of "BYE BYE VANDALISM BURN IN HELL" is in my opinion, unacceptable. This is also not vandalism, it is commentary, and POV, but it is not vandalism. Furthermore, you do not assume good faith on many of the edits you label "vandalism", even those that are most obviously first time editors probably doing test edits, such as this edit that is clearly not vandalism, and the anonymous editor made a total of two edits, that one and this one. And yet you responded to the first with shouting at the user in all caps, which is most decidedly biting the newcomers as well as not assuming good faith. I'm sorry but your methods are not productive, and go against the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. No matter what you may think of an editor, it is not helpful to shout at other editors, and referencing violence in your edit summaries ("HEADSHOT TO VANDAL") is unacceptable. Your intent may be good, but I honestly think you need to tone it down, learn the policies and guidelines, assume good faith, and be much more tolerant of children and pranksters. <font color="8B00FF">Ariel <font color="F64A8A">♥ <font color="007FFF">Gold 14:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He was blocked indef by Eagle unless he accepts to change his username though the main concern was his incivil and harsh edit summaries. We'll see if he agrees to change his username and become more civil. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  14:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The main goal of vandal 'fighting' (that's a horrible name, always thought so) is not to actually remove vandalism *gasp* although that is an important part. It is, or was at least, to turn the vandals into productive contributors. This may be a legacy of the CVU's overtly militaristic first year. Some of our best examples of community outreach have been on this topic. WP:TIGERS came out of a welcome back of a chronic edit warrior, Phaedriel took to writing individual poems to a couple vandals, which both chastised in a gentle way and amused, to soften the blow. It worked, if i recall. The framing of the whole damn thing as a war, a fight, us against them is perhaps the root cause of the problem. - M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  14:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Hugh shakespeare
User has created List of Hahnian Organizations, which he called "organizations created by or associated with Kurt Hahn. He listed Freemasonry, the YMCA, Round Square. and Outward Bound, and added the link to his list to all of those articles.  Hahn founded one of the groups (Outward Bound), had no connection to two of them (YMCA and Freemasonry), and may have philosophically had something to do with Round Square, which was founded by someone else.  I changed the list to reflect that, and that change has stayed, but, the user has reverted all removals of his information such as here (where it said "Round Square is allegedly tied to Freemasonry", here (where a link to the page was added to Freemasonry), and here (where the same was done on YMCA). Moreover, "Hahnian organization" is a neologism coined by this user - the only Google hit on it is WP. I'd like an administrator to intervene with the user to inform him of proper behavior on WP, and maybe speedy the Hahnian list while he or she is at it. MSJapan 14:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently, this user is a sock of User:Italways, having made the same edits with User:Zpearson, who is a prven sock. SSP report here. I would therefore amend my earlier statement to ask for a block instread of less decisive action. MSJapan 14:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Maplefan
Moved from AIV; previous reports here and here, checkuser request here.

and are obvious sockpuppets of banned user Maplefan. Maplefan and sockpuppet Runescapehater were originally blocked after the first ANI report, for POV pushing on MMORPG articles MapleStory and RuneScape. A second wave of sockpuppets, including Gavegave30, were blocked after the checkuser request. Twice, while using Gavegave30, Maplefan forgot to log in, appearing as 68.97.11.185. Now, Darano has has appeared, doing the same thing as Maplefan (posting about player numbers on MapleStory, something Maplefan's socks have always done, and trying to insert unsourced OR-POV negative criticism into RuneScape ). He makes the same mistake as with the Gavegave30 account; he forgets to log in, so the exact same IP used by Gavegave shows up (note "Tally Ho!" used by both). Can they be dealt with, please? See also Talk:MapleStory, Talk:MapleStory, and Talk:RuneScape Cheers! CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon user for the third time
- Philippe &#124; Talk 17:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC) The anon has, for what is now the third time, started personal attacks to back up his editing. [] is a whole section dedicated to my evils (Including how anti-semetic me and the other editors are). This anon user is clearly a single purpose account and this is now becoming rather irksome. Can't we send him to some deep dark hole where we don't have to deal with him? Narson 17:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * User blocked... again. - Philippe &#124; Talk 17:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Stalking and harassment by user:Profg
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closing note: 1) WP:CSN was closed.  2) There is at least one admin willing to unblock. 3) No uninvolved admin has chosen to disagree with the unblock. 4) It has been multiple days since the unblock occurred. I note that the definition we have for community ban is "indefintely blocked and no admin is willing to unblock". By definition then, this user is not, nor will they be, community banned. Those wishing a ban have already failed to get one - the decision has been reached, so I am closing this discussion to allow it to archive.

I also note that, unless there has been an RfC, which it is explicitly said above that there hasn't, there is no real chance of getting an ArbComm case. The next step for the complainants is to hold an RfC. While I happen to agree that they are a useless hoop to jump through, ArbComm almost definitely won't accept the dispute unless an RfC or mediation has been tried and failed. GRBerry 22:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

, who has been blocked once already for stalking and harassing me, and was doing the same to user:Odd nature, is now targeting user:ScienceApologist, and I suspect user:JoshuaZ. Can someone uninvolved please look into this matter and perhaps try to persuade ProfG that attempting to drive off other editors, isn't a terribly productive way to spend his time here. <font face="arial black" color="#737CA1"> – ornis <font color="#C11B17" size="2pt">⚙ 16:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have tried to reason with this particular user on talkpage to no avail. Uninvolved administrator attention in this matter would be greatly appreciated. ScienceApologist 16:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to negotiate with this editor and explain Wikipedia policies also to no avail.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Editor has stalked me over to Homeopathy, a field in which he showed no interest, and attempted to canvass editors into creating trouble here. Profg should be blocked or subject to a community ban.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My experience with Profg has been that he has a history of advocacy via ignoring/twisting WP:NPOV on creationism and pseudoscience related articles, and when his changes are rejected, he turns it into a personal matter, following those who've most often rejected his edits to unrelated articles they edit and undoing their work there. This a pattern I've seen repeated time and again, and has landed him in hot water more than once. Beyond Wikistalking, Profg has also misused Wikipedia processes a number of times to intimidate and silence those he views as his opponents. For example, he's made what have turned out to be several baseless allegations at WP:WQA while striking the pose of a victim of incivility when all that has happened is his behavior pattern was identified per WP:SPADE. He seems addicted to conflict, now fanning the flames at Requests_for_arbitration, and his participation at Wikipedia has contributed little other than strife. Wikipedia has never been a place for advocacy supported by vexatious litigation to drive off more responsible contributors and bullying by posing as a victim in order to dupe others and he's met all the criteria of a disruptive editor according to WP:DE. Profg should be dealt with quickly and firmly in order to lessen any further disruption to the project. Odd nature 16:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Response from Profg. I was blocked once for incivility; I admitted my mistake and corrected it. I was then blocked incorrectly by the same admin for what he thought was an "attempt to harass" another editor. I protested that block very strongly, because it was simply wrong. However, that admin refused to rescind it, despite the evidence put forth on my behalf.

Now, several POV-warriors such as ConfuciusOrnis, ScienceApologist, Orangemarlin, MastCell, Jim62sch, and Odd nature have apparently banded together against me, attempting to turn the facts around in accusing me of being what they, in fact, are.

This is no claim that there is a "cabal". This is a statement of fact, that several WP editors have taken it upon themselves to "rid Wikipedia" of all that does not fall within their (self-admittedly narrow) definition of "science," etc. They "tag-team" reverts of my (and others') legitimate edits, then pull "3RR" threats and AGF claims if they are challenged. They are very good at what they do, and they will probably succeed at this attack, also.

I have never "stalked" or "harassed" any editor. On the other hand, I have been stalked and harassed, but since I have no clique of Wiki-friends to back me up as these editors do, I have no recourse for it. It is editors like these and their friends who drive away other good editors, and will result in the demise of Wikipedia if they are not countered and corrected. It is why college instructors such as myself refuse to allow WP to be used as references or sources in any papers. This is unfortunate, because the WP project is actually a good idea.

This will be my only response to this superfluous "incident" charge. Thank you. --profg Talk 17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think what is needed here is for uninvolved admins/editors to review the above. I don't really qualify, since I've run across User:Profg in the past and share most of the above views regarding his generally confrontational and unhelpful approach. This "uninvolved" view is pretty clear Wikistalking; I'd block him myself, given his history of similar malfeasance, were I not somewhat involved. An interesting quote is here: Profg chastises another editor by stating (quite correctly, in fact) that: I have found that one of the signs of a POV-warrior is his tendency to resort to WP:AGF. He quickly closes the irony loop by noting: There are obvious exceptions; I have reminded others of AGF, as well. Indeed. Any uninvolved editors/admins willing to look this over? MastCell Talk 17:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that certainly wouldn't be me: I find Profg to be among the lowest of the low of Wikipedia editors, bringing all of the oily, sneaky, dishonesty of backroom politics to Wikipedia. His "contributions" have in no wise been constructive, his disruption of the project immense, and his ill-will and noetic necropathy are manifest.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  17:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I second the above opinion. ScienceApologist commented on an AfD, for which Profg was the contributing editor.  Profg then replied, asserting that ScienceApologist was claiming it was non-notable because he "didn't like the topic".  Shortly afterwards, he then tracked ScienceApologist to his newly opened arbitration case against another user; beating even the other subject of the case to comment.  His comments are pretty much the standard assertions of ScienceApologist being a "POV-warrior" and claiming incivility and bad faith; they show no actual knowledge of the dispute, nor are they really related to the arbitration case, beyond simple name-calling.
 * ScienceApologist then requested to know why he was being tracked. Profg replied, calling the request a "threat", accusing him of canvassing and baiting him for a "desired effect".  The hostile response prompted a reply, which Profg then chastised him for not "assuming the assumption of good faith" &mdash; ironic, given the accusations leveled.  I'm not going to block here, since although I've never been directly involved with blocking this editor, the fact that I've been following this little dispute is enough to render my judgement a little compromised.  In my opinion, this was clearly stalking, and definitely deserves a block.  Profg does not seem to understand that "seeing what another user was up to", and the following them around, is harassment.  --Haemo 17:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't clear to me that Profg was stalking me, but this does look strongly like he was stalking SA. JoshuaZ 19:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Question from someone completely uninvolved here... has there been any sort of dispute resolution attempted between any of the involved editors (user RFC, etc.)?--Isotope23 talk 19:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)--Isotope23 talk 19:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many different ways to resolve disputes according to WP:DR. Many of the informal steps listed there we have tried as documented above. If we went to Wikiquette alerts we are greeted with a notice that says if we need administrator intervention (which is what we are asking for) we are to go here. In other words, this is part of the dispute resolution process. ScienceApologist 19:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Apart from SA's attempt, user:Jéské Couriano has also tried to reason with him, as has user:William M. Connolley,, and user:KillerChihuahua. <font face="arial black" color="#737CA1"> – ornis <font color="#C11B17" size="2pt">⚙ 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been an observer of Profg and I have seen very disturbing behavior with regards to the events above, and also in regards to User:Killerchihuahua and others. Stalking, canvassing, harassing, disruptive editing, POV warring and uncivil behavior seem to be his stock in trade.--Filll 19:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * several POV-warriors such as ConfuciusOrnis, ScienceApologist, Orangemarlin, MastCell, Jim62sch, and Odd nature have apparently banded together against me, as khaosworks said "When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you."  Shot info  03:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and all suspiciously sounding like we are dealing with a case of MPOV. Such attitudes have a way of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies, ergo "If they're really out to get you, you aren't paranoid," or "Just because you're paranoid does not mean people aren't out to get you." -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 05:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, as far as JoshuaZ goes, I say "suspect", mostly due to this comment, then later turning up out of nowhere to comment on an RfAr that JoshuaZ was involved in, though looking again, I see that Odd nature was involved in that as well, and in any case, it was there that he turned his attention to scienceapologist, despite being warned against doing so. As for Orangemarlin, it's pretty obvious that profg stalked him from California Biblical University and Seminary, to Homeopathy. Again I ask, can someone not already involved, please take a look at this, his primary editing method appears to be to attack, stalk, harass and attempt to intimidate those he disagrees with. <font face="arial black" color="#737CA1"> – ornis <font color="#C11B17" size="2pt">⚙ 13:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Indef block is long overdue. After some reading of the edit history (which reveals interesting deletions of comments) of this user's talk page and blocklog, I am amazed that User:profg is still with us and see this as a case of the system failing to protect Wikipedia (and especially its editors) from disruptive and unsavory editors. Leniency has its limits. He should have been indef blocked along time ago. I have rarely seen such a negative learning curve. Even when multiple administrators have advised him and given him warnings, he then treats a highly respected admin like KillerChihuahua with extreme disrespect by deleting KC's helpful advice with this edit summary: "rm hypocritical troll". This is not the prison system where a criminal serves his time and gets out, even while clearly revealing no repentance or any intentions of reforming. Here we have a user who is rebellious and treats blocks and the advising and blocking admins with contempt. An uncivil editor with such a negative learning curve should be treated the way criminals who are not reformed should be treated - keep them in jail until they prove they are reformed, regardless of their original sentence. In this case an immediate indef block would be perfectly appropriate and is long overdue. That's the only way to make the streets safe around here. Keep this one out of circulation. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 16:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Has this user gone through a RFC?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge, no. But as the community voice is clearly in support of an indef ban, any RfC would simply delay the inevitable. As you are aware, the RfC process is used when there is some chance of remediation: there is no such chance here. In going over Profg's edits of the past month, his tendentiousness and intransigence has grown rather than abated (or even hovered at the status quo). He has become increasingly nonproductive and troll-like; has made unfounded accusations of persecution by an evil cabal, in the process assuring that those editors so accused have every right to suspend the extension of AGF in his case; has refused to listen to guidance offered him by respected editors; and has made a mockery of Wikipedia's tolerance for all ideas.  Fyslee's assertion of Profg's MPOV is highly accurate, and thus indicative of an editor beyond hope or help.
 * I shall add, that in going over Profg's edits, I have yet to find one redeemable edit, assuring then that an RfC will be littered with his misdeeds, with nothing exculpatory capable of being offered. Bottom line here is that the community has suffered enough of Profg's disruption.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  17:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well there are generally procedures to go through. An attempt to solve the dispute personally (done several times), An RFC, and then an arbitration. An RFC could be used as evidence in an arbitration.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * While those procedures have their place, there is nothing preventing any admin from single-handedly indef blocking any user caught in gross violation of certain policies here, and it happens all the time, saving alot of wasted time. It has its corrollary in real life when a police officer catches a criminal in the act. While the court system is there and can be used, if necessary the officer may be justified in immediately acting to stop a crime by using lethal violence on the spot. This saves alot of wasted time in the court system. I am hoping an admin will be courageous enough to just indef block this user at any moment. No one will complain. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 18:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of a user:RfC ever being worth the time people put into it? I've started a number, commented on a number and they've all more or less ended up in arbitration or back here or at CSN or resolved through some other means eventually. Never has the User:RfC amounted to any action taking place. What's the point of User RfCs? ScienceApologist 17:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure. Though this page here is essentially a RFC as so many editors are commenting. I don't think ProfG can simply be banned without some sort of arbitration though.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I started a proposal about this: Village pump (proposals). ScienceApologist 18:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL, SA. Actually, WDM, he can be summarily banned, it's called a community ban. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  19:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * SA, I am SOOO happy you're back with us. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * An indef block has been proposed. It seems clear that Profg has shown contempt for Wikipedia and has escalated from personal attacks and incivility to stalking and harassment. No one has offered any positive comments about Profg. It may be that he has exhausted the communities patience. Are there any administrators who object to such a block? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * KC, let it be noted, almost this entire "discussion" has been amongst yourselves; there is no "consensus" among uninvolved parties, any more than there was "consensus" to delete the article I just created, where most of the parties here also went to "impartially discuss". I have obviously not been "caught in gross violation" of WP policies to warrant an indef block. I am more than willing to enter into arbitration, as there is ample evidence that can be brought forth on my behalf. If you are intent on an indef block, please follow policies and procedures accordingly. Thank you. --profg Talk 15:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin, but I would not object to such a measure considering this users history.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering what aspect of this users history, please? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the whole stalking and harassing thing. Not to mention he's already been blocked in the past twice for incivility and harassment. I think the other editors commenting here have brought up a lot.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. You cite multiple instances of this editor not being beneficial, not learning, not in short being anything but a detriment to Wikipedia, and you give that as reason for your objection? Please clarify, I seem to be missing something here. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking. I stated that I do NOT object to this user being blocked for a long period of time. The reasons are echoed by the other editors who have commented here. This user has been blocked twice in the past for harassment and incivility, attempts have been made on my part and the part of other editors to try to get him to act civil and to explain the policies to him. I sent him e-mails explaining policies and methods for properly editing and he seems to have ignored them (as he continues to edit the same way since he started). For the record, I never said that this user has made no beneficial contributions. I would have to look over his edit history to determine that and it's quite subjective anyway.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, my error - I read it wrong. I missed the "not" and read it as you would object - apologies for any confusion I've caused. Thanks for your patience in clarifying and clearing up my misunderstanding. :-) KillerChihuahua?!? 16:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As a pretty much uninvolved editor - I've seen him around, but not really interacted with him that I can recall, I'm going to pass judgement. Indef blocked. Adam Cuerden talk 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. I've observed ProfG's behavior at Homeopathy and the associated good article review and found him to be completely unknowledgeable about the topic, yet bent on opposing whatever OrangeMarlin's view happened to be. I'm not going to post diffs about this, in the interest of privacy, but a glance at his editing history (particularly from last spring and summer) reveals a clear conflict of interest. Skinwalker 19:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This user is requesting to be unblocked:User talk:Profg.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Something is really bothering me here. The diffs above don't seem particularly bad and I've seen far worse from a number of admins.  The article talk pages in that topic area are largely a cesspool simply because emotions tend to run high.  Pick out a few diffs from anyone who edits controversial topics and you'll find some things here and there. It looks like there was a previous well-earned block but since then, the only diffs provided are that he has opined on an arbitration case.  Good grief, should we go block everyone who does that for "stalking"? Unless there is something more, I oppose this ban.  I'm not saying there isn't something more - just that I haven't seen it. -- B  21:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to echo B's comments here. As an entirely uninvolved Admin, who has spent a couple of hours digging through all of this, I'm not seeing anything that clinches the argument to ban. Yes, Profg originally tried to remove negative information from the CBU article, but he stopped that & his attempts to make some copy edits kept getting reverted -- as if the folks involved had already made up their minds about him. And in the charge that Profg stalked OrangeMarlin from CBU to Homeopathy, it appears to me that the opposite actually happened. And the exchange between Wikidudeman & OrangeMarlin was far more passionate than anything Profg wrote. About the only things I could find were the odd snide comments, & the edit comment on deleting KillerChuhuana's post. I'm not going to unblock him, though, because if I had been in his place & been treated this badly for no good reason I would have left Wikipedia; wanting more of the same is just not expected behavior. -- llywrch 00:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I echo B and Llywrch in opposing this ban as at least one-sided. I don't endorse Profg's opinions, and I agree that his behavior has sometimes been out of line, but I have been concerned recently about the behavior of others who seem determined to bait him and then get rid of him.  I have recently been involved in a prolonged discussion on Dominionism (talk), a contentious religio-political issue on which finding the right NPOV balance takes a lot of work.  Several of us have been involved in a mostly constructive dialogue, but I have not appreciated the behavior of User:Odd nature and User:FeloniousMonk, who have both (ON more than FM) repeatedly reverted the page to their preferred POV while refusing after many requests to take any part in the constructive discussion on the talk page.  What makes this particularly relevant to the current dispute is this edit summary for another of Odd nature's unjustified reversions, in which he accused Profg of stalking him despite the fact that Profg had been involved in the talk-page discussions that ON has continually shunned.  The charge obviously didn't stick (it's not mentioned above), but the pretexts have now been found elsewhere.  My impression of FM and ON is that they prefer to advance their position by forcefully restating it, and I fear that their attempt to get rid of Profg is another example of this.  --BlueMoonlet 21:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the resolved tag from here because I really don't think this is resolved. I'm not seeing anyone who is not involved in this topic area support the ban. There hasn't been a community ban discussion - this is an "old school" ban where a user is considered banned if no admin is willing to unblock. Well, consider this notice that I am willing to unblock and it is my intention to unblock barring substantial agreement by uninvolved users that the block should remain in place. I would like to offer the proposal to that he agree to civility parole and a 1RR restriction and, if he accepts, it is my intention to unblock him. Any thoughts? -- B 23:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Profg deserves a formal warning and a chance to reform.  There are some violations of WP:NPA that are not to be winked at, but provocation by other users should also be taken into account.  In my opinion, the WP:STALK accusation has been exaggerated (and the second block was borderline), though there may be some real violations there as well.  I think stalking policy and how it applies to Profg's situation should be made crystal clear to him.  Finally, several users involved here could use a reminder that seeking WP:CONSENSUS (and abiding by it if it goes against you) is superior to edit-warring.  --BlueMoonlet 01:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Who cares? The consensus is that this editor remain blocked/banned/exiled.  I strongly disagree with your two-person agreement. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you mean three people; in any case, a block like that requires unanimous support. If B is willing to supervise ProfG -- or ProfG stays away from this article for the time being -- he should be given another chance. If you can produce more convincing evidence than what I've seen above, I'm willing to change my mind. He's obviously not a saint & his behavior merits at the least a warning, but in this case I feel ProfG was nothing more than the lightning rod that grounded the hostile energy surrounding this article. -- llywrch 21:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly, I think you're being a fool. Believe it or not, WP is not a utopian remediation project, we have real work to do, and rehabilitating tendentious edits is not one of our chores. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 22:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a bad move made by a couple of admins. This is why people like JzG and SlimVirgin leave this project, because more time is spent supporting the POV warrior attitude of editors like ProfG instead of supporting those editors who carefully build articles across a wide spectrum of the project.  I think this decision goes against what is right, and allows someone who whines the loudest to get their way.  Moreover, Profg will be gloating that he can get away with this.  Well, there are other ways to have ProfG removed from the project, that don't rely upon the minority opinions of two admins.  Will we ever learn?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Then provide diffs that prove your point. I don't mind blocking people, & I'm not doing this out of friendship for PrfG, but all I've seen in this dispute is run-of-the-mill sarcasm & heated words -- from both sides. We start blocking people for that, there won't be anyone left to manage the project except for the newbies & those who make les than 25 edits & move on. -- llywrch 05:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Llywrch, are we even talking about the same editor? The only way I can make sense of your comments is if you have read the edit history of another editor than Profg. Amazing. I think your comment that "all I've seen in this dispute is run-of-the-mill sarcasm & heated words -- from both sides" is very telling. I don't doubt that that is "all" you've "seen", because that too exists. You have apparently not "seen" what the rest of us have seen and which is abundantly evident if you study his talk page and interactions with others. Too bad that this menace will now be released on us again. Just as long as he stays away from his usual haunts, maybe some progress can be made in actual editing. Fortunately I don't do much editing on creationist topics, preferring to edit alternative medicine/quackery type stuff, since that's what I know most about. But just the storms left after his presence spill all over the place and create disruption far and wide in indirect ways. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 05:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I am removing this block as soon as I finish typing this. 24 hours after my previous message, no uninvolved user has weighed in to oppose the unblock. No uninvolved user even weighed in to support the block to begin with. After a careful review of Profg's contributions, I find no evidence to support the contention that he has had no positive contributions and only evidence of one bad behavior - canvassing - since his last block, for which a 48-hour block is sufficient. As a matter of procedure, this discussion was originally not raised as a community ban discussion and from the first mention of an indefinite block until the time it was imposed was only 24 hours. During that time, not a single uninvolved editor weighed in. An unblock here has no downside. Profg has agreed to editing restrictions. If he creates a disruption, that's it. He's gone. I do not take this action lightly, but I firmly believe that the block was incorrect and that the ban discussion was insufficient. -- B 22:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a bad bad idea. If you unleash this holy terror on us to try to destroy the project, we will pay a terrible price for your recklessness. The only way I would let him back on is under the condition that he be blocked from all evolution and creationism-related articles where he engages in pitched combat and viscious attacks. It would probably be a good idea that he stay away from editing pseudoscience and religion articles as well.--Filll 22:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Holy terror"? That's uncalled for.  In any event, if he is incivil or disruptive, it's over - I will personally reimpose the block if someone doesn't beat me to it.  Please give him the benefit of the doubt. -- B  22:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If there was any doubt, I'd give him the benefit. Although the unblock was exceptionally ill-advised he probably is smart enough to clean up his act for a while. I trust you will stand behind your promise to reinstate the block once he reverts to type. Raymond Arritt 14:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're going to unblock, I highly suggest a topic ban as well as a civility parole. He has not had a problem with 3RR, so that's a bit of a red herring IMO.  No one has addressed my concerns of a COI that I expressed above either.  Skinwalker 22:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You've got to be more specific about the COI. -- B  23:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll email you. Skinwalker 23:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --profg Talk 00:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Protest unblock. Admin  B , your mention of "uninvolved users" is a red herring. You thus ignore and even throw away the voice of all the many concerned users, both involved and uninvolved, who have voiced their concerns above. Profg has now removed all remnants of the agreement. I believe it should be a condition that he leave the template and agreement at the top of his talk page for the benefit of other users. This is especially important considering that he has previously removed warnings, not because he has simply read them, but in defiance and as a demonstration that he had no intention of heeding the warnings. He has done this before, so this time he should leave the warnings, templates, etc. on the page until his probation is over. In fact he should be warned not to remove any warnings in the future. For your sake I hope that your trust will be rewarded, but I fear that he will drag you down with him, since he seems to be unreformable. Reinstating such a banned user after such an emphatic consensus against him is unheard of and usually not a good move. Your move expresses a remarkable lack of good faith towards the community's decision. Such a massive failure to AGF is problematic, especially coming from an admin like yourself. You should have (earlier in the process) been a part of the discussion here and let your concerns be heard and discussed. I never knew anything about your plans to reinstate Profg until it was done. Once he had been blocked, my attentions (and likely most other's as well) were turned elsewhere so you and Profg could do this "behind our backs." I strongly protest this unwise move and wish you had shown some good faith in us instead of treating us with such disrespect. Such a move surprises and disappoints me, considering your profession of faith on your user page. If that's what such a belief produces, then I question its value. (My apologies to B for getting carried away.) -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 06:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That last comment was way over the line, Fyslee. Regarding "I believe it should be a condition that he leave the template and agreement at the top of his talk page for the benefit of other users," I agree.  Profg has a history of archiving his talk page using the Permanent link archives method, but I think he should be strongly encouraged to use the subpage method instead, and to leave the agreement on his main talk page.  --BlueMoonlet 06:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks BlueMoonlet. I did get carried away and have struck out my last comment. My apologies to B. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 15:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me; I agree to do so. --profg Talk 07:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Profg. I hope to see a good followup on your intentions expressed here. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 15:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, one admin, who seems to be supporting these type of useless editors (I note the Ferrylodge arbitration), has decided to undo what the community believes. B should put himself up for recall, because he shouldn't have this power. This is a terrible decision that ignores the mass of evidence of Profg's behavior. I can't believe it. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 15:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OM, if you want to take this to a venue where a significant number of impartial and uninvolved people will make a fair decision, feel free. I think our point is that that's what should have been done in the first place.  --BlueMoonlet 17:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And I think you're overstepping. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 17:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys, to be perfectly honest, this is just taking a turn for the weird. The flagrant personal attacks here are worse than anything I have seen from Profg. No uninvolved user has even weighed in here in support of the ban - this isn't how community bans work. Community bans are COMMUNITY bans, not involved editor bans. A ban is the last step in the dispute resolution process, not the first one. But if you really feel that a ban is warranted, have a legitimate discussion with input and agreement from uninvolved editors - uninvolved means people who don't edit the same topic area - and an uninvolved admin to make the block and I won't stand in the way. If the decision to ban him is really the correct decision, you ought to be able to convince a few uninvolved editors of it. -- B 03:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I also disagree with this user being unblocked. I think that too many people are far too lenient with such editors who have been given far too many chances and continue to disrupt. Essentially every editor involved with ProfG agrees that he is disruptive and problematic. My question is, why do so many people assume that an editor not involved has a more accurate idea of this editor than editors who have spent weeks or months with him? Sure, involved editors might be blinded by their own emotions, however I think that is drastically underestimating most editors. I think that the editors who have experience with this editor have a lot more to say than someone who has no experience with them. I also believe that if one takes enough time to closely examine ProfG's edits, they too would agree with the large number of involved editors, that ProfG is quite disruptive. I find it quite odd that for obvious vandals, we give them a few warnings and then block them (at increasing durations after each offense), and with less obvious problematic editors than obvious vandals we generally give them attempts to change in the forms of requests for comment, mediations and then finally arbitrations. However what do we do for the editors who fall in between obvious vandals and the not so obvious problematic editors? Obviously an arbitration lasting for months isn't the way to go, nor are RFC's which are frequently ignored or disregarded by such editors. I think that community blocks are the answer and that this block was well justified. Perhaps the best way to go is to put limitations on this user, such as 1rr and a civility watch, however as has been mentioned above, many of this editors problems arise neither from 3rr or obvious incivility but stalking and harassment. Obviously stalking is the worst problem with this user, who has caused a lot of problems at the Homeopathy article, an article which apparently he was uninterested in until following another user there. Perhaps another limitation can be placed on this editor which would prevent him from stalking and harassing other editors, however I can think of no such limitation that can be put in places that would have any such effect as it's quite subjective to judge whether a user innocently came to an article with a user he is in dispute with or came there to further the dispute and/or harass the other user in question.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1RR isn't just about 3RR. It ensures that someone pushing a POV can't continually revert to their POV. -- B  04:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But, How do we stop stalking and harassment? How do we stop him from going into a users contribs and finding some dispute that the user is involved in and then involving himself into it just to instigate further disputes?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Profg has shown no ability to do so, and he has worn out good faith. B supports profg for some mysterious (and to me, not mysterious at all) reasons which are reprehensible.  B should immediately recuse himself and put himself up for recall.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an obvious case of conflict of interest by B. He should reinstate the block, recuse himself from further involvement, and if some other admin, of which there are 0 so far, gets involved then so be it. B's actions implicitly supports the behavior and attitudes of profg, which are unacceptable to the community. This was a bad decision. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 17:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is really getting old. There's no basis whatsoever to claim that there is a conflict of interest.  I had never heard of him, his website, or his employer prior to someone emailing me and telling me who they were.  Your targeting me because of my religion is unacceptable.  I unblocked a user because the alleged "ban discussion", with no input outside of the editors of a single topic area, was inadequate to demonstrate the will of the community and because the evidence given above did not support a ban. -- B  19:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, if he does that, leave a message on my talk page. -- B 19:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any conflict of interest from User:B. Even if there was a conflict of interest, ProfG is severely limited in his capability to do any further disruptions at this point it's not even relevant. If he reverts more than once, he's blocked. If he violates civility, he's blocked. If he attempts to harass or stalk other editors, he's blocked. I think that this should be sufficient to prevent him from being disruptive any longer.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I do see it. B should recuse himself, reblock profg, and allow a truly independent and uninvolved administrator to unblock the edit-warrior, if they want.  B should be subject to a recall for his reprehensible actions herein.  And it is vile to accuse me of giving a shit about your religion (which I don't, but that's for philosophical reasons which are irrelevant to a COI).  Your support of profg makes NO sense whatsoever--since I am a rational human being, and profg has done everything to deserve the block, I cannot understand what might possess someone to unblock profg.  B's explanation of doing so is rather weak.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 12:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Main Page image incident
Oops. The main page image seems to have been vandalised. Some handwritten c-upload notice! Carcharoth 07:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The image can be seen here. Looking at the history of Commons:Image:Templarsign.jpg, we see an edit summary of "I am sooo sorry", followed by a revert a minute later. Do we have to make points about c-upload in front of all our readers? Carcharoth 07:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't have been done. Comment left at User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)Yes, I kind of violated WP:POINT there. See Administrators%27_noticeboard which I posted before I saw this thrad.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 07:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I grovel - I changed the image to try and settle a disagreement over what should be the best image. I had intended to then full protect it on Commons but was distracted. Someone decided to make a point and upload a vandalised image on Commons to the same title. The point (though it could have been made more kindly) is well taken - be careful in updating templates transcluded onto the mainpage. Either upload a local copy or protect the Commons one... WjBscribe 07:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WJB, I don't suppose this incident might prompt you to become the first admin bot operator on Commons, as well? We already have the necessary code.--chaser - t 07:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I did make the initial report (without checking WP:AN), and I don't normally defend this sort of thing, but for a one-minute thing it was pretty harmless. As we have seen, it did make WjBScribe (our new admin bot overlord) sit up and take notice! Now, who wants to write an admin bot program to make sure this never happens again? :-) Carcharoth 08:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I wonder whether a creative WP:POINT violation could be thought up to drive the point home to Jeffrey O. Gustafson that some readers will have seen this? Or would that thought end up drowning in its own irony. Carcharoth 08:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)



Titoxd, your pen is running out of ink... :-) Carcharoth 08:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a pencil, actually... Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 08:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What did I tell all of you about deleting the main page? I'm tentatively against it. El_C 09:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, WTF?
I discovered that the TFA image for today (Battleship) was not uploaded locally. Again. Honestly, its not that hard, people. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That one is protected on commons. Was it not when you wrote this?  —Wknight94 (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I discovered it, mentioned it on IRC, and a commons admin protected it after the fact. The fact still remains: An Image Was On The Main Page Unprotected, And People Don't Get It.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 02:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was fucking transcluded on to commons:User:Zzyzx11/En main page which is fucking cascade protected and it was transcluded there for quite some fucking time so it was been fucking protected on commons long before your fucking message here. Shall I also start inserting fuck into every fucking edit summary too?  Is that some new fucking trend you're starting? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah... yes... now I remember why I stopped checking whether images on the Main Page are unprotected. Zzyzx11 told me about that page awhile ago. Thanks for reminding me that I wasn't imagining that. --  tariq abjotu  02:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as Jeffrey O. Gustafson has so gently pointed out, Zzyzx11's methodology isn't fool-proof. In the Templar's case, the main page image was switched out for another so Zzyzx11 was left with the wrong image commons protected.  It doesn't appear DYK images are ever added to Zzyzx11's cascade protection so those always need to be checked as well.  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's semi-protected on Commons; is it supposed to be fully protected? However, to be fair, the image for TOFA basically just appears on the Main Page automagically. I suppose you could ask Raul to protect images he puts in the TOFA templates, but beyond that, the fact that images go on the Main Page (under TOFA) unprotected is as much your fault as it any admin's. Images that are actually put on the Main Page by people – in ITN and DYK – are a different story. --  tariq abjotu  02:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is fully protected by way of being transcluded on to a cascade fully protected page as I mentioned above. The additional semi-protection was unnecessary (which neither Jeffrey O. Gustafson nor the semi-protecting commons admin seem to have noticed).  —Wknight94 (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest (unless this is some form of joke on his part that I just don't 'get') Jeffery may wish to take a Wikibreak? While I understand Wikipedia is uncensored, I find swearing for the sake of it moderately distasteful. HalfShadow 02:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How hard would it be to have a bot that would check every 2 minutes the images displayed on the main page, make sure they are protected (even going so far as to attempt to edit the commons image description page), and if they aren't, post a warning in some suitable location? -- B 03:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there a bot to do this? Wasn't cascading protection created so that the bot would not be needed? --Carnildo 03:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The bot was more aimed at templates, I think. The problem was that templates were staying unprotected and getting pictures of male anatomy added to them. But cascading protection doesn't help with images still on Commons.  Only admins can overwrite a Commons image with a local one, so we would either need an adminbot to upload all of the images locally (in which case cascading protection would take over), protect the images on Commons if they are not protected (needs to be a commons adminbot), or make a list and yell+scream loudly when something isn't protected. -- B  03:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For those interested in seeing how we did this before, Shadowbot2 was the bot that checked protection on the Main Page. It originally just listed problems on-wiki, until we realized that at least one vandal was watching it and was racing to beat the admins to the unprotected item.  So interested admins simply opted into email notices, before cascading protection rendered the bot obsolete.  - BanyanTree 10:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Except for the fact that it didn't render the bot obsolete. QED (see above). ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 19:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC) edit ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 19:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You can always ask Shadow1 if he wants to retask the bot to watch Commons. Most of the admins who already signed up probably wouldn't mind. - BanyanTree 23:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have an admin bot on commons and would happly take care of the task. I will have to seek approval on commons as well. What precisely is the task - so that even an idiot (me) can understand with ease. -- Cat chi? 23:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also the main problem we have in commons is the lack of ability to protect images without protecting the image (the image itself hardly change) description pages (frequently changes). -- Cat chi? 23:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is this: every 5 minutes, make a list of images displayed on the enwiki main page and then go protect those images on commons. Keep track of what you protect so that when your bot sees that something it protects is no longer on the main page, it can be unprotected. -- B  23:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There's some danger with this approach, in that the image might get vandalized after it's on the main page but before the bot sees and protects it. Should probably check to see that the most recent version of the image is non-recent. &mdash;Cryptic 23:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Keep in mind, also, that en admins can block a commons image - we can upload an image locally with the same name and it will override the commons version. So if the vandalized version gets protected, there is a fix for it. -- B  23:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of username-change redirects
Hi, in September I changed my username from Rambutan. At the time, I requested that no redirects be created, and was told that this was fine, but the change would still be in the log. I agreed to this, but then later decided not to have them deleted.

However, today I changed my mind and tried to get them deleted. After trying to get attention on IRC where I was abused by ST47, Wimt, NotASpy and Daniel-Bryant, the User: and User_talk: pages were deleted. ST47 then undeleted the User_talk: page. I re-requested speedy deletion, it was turned down by the rude Wimt, and I re-requested specifying more accurately my rationale. The page was protected by ST47.

My point is, suppose I hadn't changed my mind at the time of the rename, and they had been deleted then? Or supposed I'd had my User: and User_talk: pages deleted when I was Rambutan - no redirects would ever have been created. So why am I being denied this now? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't intend to be at all rude, but the page is not a candidate for speedy deletion. I'm not sure what you were told on WP:CHU, but renames are not made without redirects to the new username except in extremely mitigating circumstances (which, unless I'm missing something, I cannot see here). It causes unnecessary confusion to many people. Will (aka Wimt ) 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a CSD because you deleted the CSD. I replaced it and the page was protected. As I explained, I had a rename on the basis that the redirects were deletable. Also, what's your comments on the second sentence of my last paragraph above? And why did NotASpy just boot me on IRC for notifying him/her that s/he's on ANI? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In relation to that point, we don't delete user talk pages unless a user is invoking right to vanish (i.e. leaving the project altogether) so that request would also have been turned down. Will (aka Wimt ) 16:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What's db-userreq for, then? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly what it says. User subpages. This does not include your talk page. Will (aka Wimt ) 16:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are not deleted because of the history that must be preserved within them. In this case, the talk page was moved to the new name's location, and that is not a valid reason for declining this deletion. Just delete the thing; it isn't the end of the world. - <font color="#0000cd">auburn <font color="#EF6521">pilot  talk  16:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no need for these pages to be deleted, the user in question will have left a link to his userpage or talk page through his signature any time he has signed a page, should anybody then wish to contact the user in question, it is made much easier through the retention of these redirects. Not every user is aware of the user rename log or how to use it. Nick 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You were booted from irc for trolling. Also, I cannot see how the other users specified have broken any policy, unless I am missing something. :-)  Stwalkerster  talk 16:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I said the following, and that's ALL: "Just to let those of you who know who you are... you're on ANI". Where's this trolling, then? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm I (as NotASpy on IRC) did not boot you the first time, you rejoined with a different nick 4 seconds later, and I kicked you for rejoining in violation of a boot, as I have explained to you. Nick 16:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to have the redirect deleted so desperately?  Melsaran  (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It matters? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Can you please explain why you no longer want people who click on your old signature to be forwarded to your present userpage and talkpage, thanks. Nick 16:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would prefer the greater privacy that it would offer. It cloaks me from the cr*p people who plagued me when I was Rambutan. The non-cr*p people who know their way round WP will use the rename log. I see some support for the deletion here - please go ahead and do it. --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Folks, lets not get wrapped around the axle here, delete it. M er cury    16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, can you articulate a good reason? M er cury    17:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I kind of have done. --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't see this, but I have already contacted ST47 about this. This is what I said:
 * The user that used to be Rambutan has contacted me about your overturning the deletion of User talk:Rambutan. As I understand it, if this user does not want any connection between their two accounts, then he is entitled to remove the links. As the page was moved, anyone who had edited the user talk page would now see that in their history as an edit of the moved page. If anyone gets curious then they can search the user rename log; there is also an entry in the block log which notes the connection, so the user is not able to hide their block history. I often see user talk pages put up for speedy deletion, and I remove the speedy tag from them; however this one is an exception. Do you object to my deleting the page?
 * In my view the user's preference to delete the page is reasonable. Sam Blacketer 18:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that there is only one account, not two, and contributions found attributed under the name "Porcupine" have been signed Rambutan, the signature contains links to these pages we're discussing now. Users deserve to be able to visit a user or talk page when clicking on an old signature. Nick 19:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. I just spent 15 minutes reading the entire WP:CHU and related pages, and could not find any rule/guideline allowing/prohibiting/creating/deleting a redirect to the new user pages. db-user (CSD U1) is fair game here and should not have been declined. That's my interpretation. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 18:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If Rambutan was behaving in the exact same manner, but using two accounts, per WP:SOCK he would likely be blocked, circumventing this policy using an account that has been usurped should not be possible, and I suggest deference to the aforementioned policy when considering removing links between an old and a new username for the same account. Nick 19:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If I run AWB over all incoming links to User:Rambutan and User talk:Rambutan and make them point to the new account, would that solve the problem? Sam Blacketer 19:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If the user is annoyed that people who quarrelled with him on the old account will pursue him to the new one, he is surely free to start a new account from scratch and then tell no-one that there is a connection between the accounts. My discomfort with his proposal above is that he wants to both keep and lose his old history on Wikipedia. Since I don't think he was blocked under the old account, him starting from scratch without comment on a new account would probably not be criticized. EdJohnston 19:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * His account, prior to being renamed, had a fairly extensive block log, some of these blocks were overturned, however. The block log which was orphaned upon being renamed can be found here Special:Blockip/User:Rambutan. Nick 20:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the actions taken and, absent significant and cogent objection, intend to re-delete these pages based on the precedent established in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat and the ensuing unholding of my close there on DRV. The user's desire to avoid the redirects may seem quixotic, but edit-warring to insist on keeping userspace redirects of this nature is counter-productive and should not be encouraged. I caution Porcupine, however, that the title he gave some of the talkpage notifications regarding this dispute was unnecessarily confrontational and that he should avoid that in the future. Newyorkbrad 21:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Sam Blacketer 21:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would ask that we take these redirects to a suitable MfD/RfD, given the fact several administrators don't agree with their deletion. Nick 21:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That should not be necessary. Unless someone feels very strongly that these userspace redirects are essential, they should be deleted summarily per the request of the user in question. A five-day community discussion of this issue would be, in my humble opinion, overkill. Newyorkbrad 21:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the redirects has been deleted and undeleted already, and I feel, given this has happened, a discussion would more appropriate than further administrative action at this time. Nick 21:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Is a discussion not what has happened here? Sam Blacketer 21:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Then I guess ST47 will have to state his case here, as the undeletion has no basis in policy or guideline. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 21:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but the deletion has no basis in policy or guidelines either, so in this case, I strongly suggest deference to the sockpuppetry policy, which states that multiple accounts shall not be used to avoid scrutiny of other editors, in the case of users having been renamed, I would suggest multiple usernames should be treated as "multiple accounts". Nick 22:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * CSD U1 is a policy. Sock policy really doensn't apply here; the username change would have been denied if the intention was to evade scrutiny. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if CSD U1 can apply here, because after a rename, the user and talk page redirects left behind are no longer the user and talk pages attached to an account, and aren't the work of the user requesting deletion, so I believe they would need to be considered under any suitable redirect speedy deletion criteria. There's also the question, what happens if another user registers the old username, so something we need to decide, is at what point does the user loose rights on their old username and it's associated user and talk pages, and the like. Nick 22:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything you've just mentioned are all the more reason to just delete any old redirect; like you said, it's no longer attached to the new account. And a new user creating the old username may find the old redirect going "WTF, who stole my userpage!". — Edokter  •  Talk  • 00:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I was present on IRC at the time that Rambutan started requesting that his user page be deleted, and proceed to threaten me with the disclosure of logs. I full agree with the undeletion.  There has to be some accountability on this project.  It is not a free-for-all - it is not a video game which you can go back to a previous save with.  The fact is that Rambutan has secured himself what appears to be a clean slate to anything but the most studious of observers, who actually know how to operate the user rename log (I don't - it will never work for me, whatever deatils I put in to whichever text box - and anyone who thinks I'm going to look through the rename logs of all the crats or of the whole wiki needs a brain bypass).
 * He has no right to vanish, by virtue of the fact that he is not vanishing. This is (if you'll bear with me) effectively sockpuppetry, of the ilk we see around Qst (I am not inferring that Rambutan is a sock of anyone..).  Qst, when he got a stain on his account, would leave it and set up a new one.  A few weeks/months later, around the time of the next RfA, a link would appear proclaiming that he "used to be User:X", and this would be used as a supporting statement in an RfA.  With a rename like this, there is that little bit less transparency, because the user doesn't proclaim what they were previously known as.  If I were to see Porcupine up at RfA now, I might have leaned much further towards suport than I would with him being Rambutan.  This is because I, and countless others, have an opinion related to Rambutan, but haven't had any experience with Porcupine.
 * It works the same for normal interactions - not just RfA. There needs to be this accountability of name-recognition.  A user rename can't be used as an excuse to actually bypass the opinions that others may hold.  As far as I know, renames are there for aesthetic reasons, not to give users a "right-to-partially-vanish-but-return-with-a-massive-edit-count-and-no-negative-connotations-associated-with-my-name".  Policy needs clarifying to this extent, or user renames, useless wastes of server cycles as they are, should be stopped. Martinp23 22:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if the block log was transferred to the new account, it might help. It might reduce the number of renaming requests from troublesome users. Sam Blacketer 22:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Porcupine is making no secret that he was Rambutan. 2nd, when his user/talk page were moved, the full history, including all block messages are retained. He is still fully accountable for his past actions. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nowhere on his user page did it (earlier today) say "I am the user formerly known as Rambutan". Therefore he has no accountability, because when I see suspicious behaviour, I'm not going to go rooting through a user's archives to see if it has happened before (though I may use the block log).  I'm going to work on name recognition, which is, in this case, being denied to me.  Similarly, if a newish user sees a personal attackmade by a user who has since been renamed and deleted, they have no easy way of associating that action with the new username, as it should be.  Martinp23 22:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Re. comment by NYB above, best one on this thread. Absolutely correct. 86.29.39.5 22:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's a load of bull. The Cool Cat MfD was incorrectly closed, and the issue was only left alone because other users were "tired" of hearing about it, and decided to force the closure. "Precedent established" couldn't be more wrong. The fact that this issue has come up again in a completely unrelated matter shows that, 1) the CSD in question was not made for these types of situations, but for mild, uncontroversial situations, 2) unless there is an issue of privacy or some other reasonable excuse, such redirects are not owned by the user, but rather are being used by the community to keep track of such name changes, and 3) there is clearly some disagreement on these issues, so either side saying "I'm right, drop it" is out of line, and we need to actually address this. -- Ned Scott 22:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more. This is perhaps relevant. &mdash;Cryptic 00:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am still going to stand by my original position here in declining the speedy deletion and endorse Martinp23's comments above. I don't see this as the same as the Cool Cat situation, the MfD of which NYB pointed to, on two counts. Firstly, you will note that the MfD deleted Cool Cat's userpage which I have no problem with Rambutan having deleted. However, as you will note, User talk:Cool Cat is indeed a redirect and has always been one. Secondly, White Cat wanted to remove the record of his former name (regardless of what you think of his reasoning behind this) not to try to distance himself from all talk page comments that he had previously placed, which is in effect what Rambutan is attempting to do here. In fact, White Cat went as far as trying to alter all his signatures to point to his new name (though this may not have been a sensible action). Therefore, I don't believe the two situations are at all comparable. I strongly believe that renaming should not be used as some kind of method to partially hide someone's previous actions, whilst keeping a background of contributions. I have seen no appreciable reason why Rambutan's old talk page can not redirect to his new one for ease of everyone. It seems rather ridiculous in my opinion that people should have to root around rename logs to find the user that a particular comment is attributed to, when a redirect would suffice perfectly well. Many new users will have no clue how to root around said log, and so be at a complete loss as to who made these comments. I don't believe that is what the rename process is for at all. By all means it can be used to change your name to something new that you prefer, and by all means it can be used to help you vanish if you are leaving, but what is achieved from this other than causing a great deal of confusion? So that's my position, and I stand by it. Will (aka Wimt ) 01:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I stopped reading at the point where he accused a number of established users, myself included, of "abuse". If he can't get his first sentence factually correct, I have little confidence in believing the rest of what Rambutan proclaims.  Daniel  03:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to make another point as to why I believe this doesn't have any precedent from the White Cat MfD. In that debate, nigh on all of the people that said that they were happy for the page to be deleted noted that White Cat was not hiding his previous identity at all (his user page clearly stated his previous username). When I look at User:Porcupine at the moment, I see no mention at all of the fact he used to be Rambutan. In fact, quite the opposite. The statement "Hi, welcome to the userpage of Porcupine. They're just my favourite animals!! So cute... I've been using Wikipedia for a very long time now, but this is the first time I've been tempted to get a user account." seems completely misleading to me. Will (aka Wimt ) 03:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The contents of Rambutan's old block log are sobering. Though some blocks were reversed, at least two blocks were served out in full, the longer of which was for one week. The comment was Repeated disruption, personal attacks, incivility, misuse of Twinkle, etc. The contents of User talk:Porcupine/Archives/2007/Sep suggest that the behavioral issues commented on in the block log have not gone away. It was noted above that this editor was booted off of IRC for his behavior while requesting this very deletion. Given the complexity of his current situation, I suggest that his request to delete the links not be granted at this time. EdJohnston 03:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as blocks go, Secretlondon did a 1 second block to draw attention to the old block log, so they aren't hiding from admins. Viridae Talk 05:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So what's the upshot of all this, then? What's going to happen? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Section break
Personally, I don't mind if redirects are deleted after a name change. The only concern that comes to mind for me is the possibility of someone attempting to expunge their prior block record. But as long as the block log is linked to the new names, as in this case, I think we should be more accommodating and a little less bureaucratic. I must admit that I have a bias here in that I deleted the redirects on my previous username, though that was a slightly different case as my previous username was my real name and my reasons for wanting to cut the redirects were that I was being stalked and harassed in real life by a former partner. I deleted the redirects originally but they were subsequently re-deleted by other admins and eventually protected. I don't know why Porcupine has been so adamant and persistent about his request, but the fact that he is being so insistent gives me the impression that he likely has a valid reason but doesn't want to share it for priacy reasons. Fine by me. He isn't under any ArbCom or community sanctions or anything else that would make me feel forced maintenance of these redirects is necessary. So if no one else has deleted them by the time I mosey on over there, I intend to delete them myself....All that said, Porcupine, when you come to an administrative noticeboard to request assistance and support for your position, please try to formulate your message in a way that does not seem like you are attacking other users. I understand that you are frustrated by the bureaucracy and I personally find your frustration understandable, but launching into an attack of established and well thought of editors in your opening post only serves to get people off-side. Sarah 10:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC) And I might add that there are others with block logs who have had their redirects deleted after a name change.User:Tbeatty is one who comes to mind. His case was discussed here and on AN and. as I recall, no one raised any objections and the redirects remain deleted and the page protected. Sarah 11:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I endorse the deletion. This seems to be turning more and more into "we don't like him so let's decline his request". I don't like him either, but his request was valid and no-one has convinced me that declining his request is based on policy. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 14:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are users on this Wiki who I trust about as far as I can throw them, who have sparklingly clean block logs. I recognise them by name, but wouldn't be able to do so if they were renamed.  I am sure that nearly every observer can appreciate this - themselves knowing of such users. Martinp23 16:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I support Sarah's deletion on the basis that the user is not under Community or ArbCom sanction and that his old block log is linked to. If people disagree with Sarah's decision, I hope they will take the matter to DRV rather than recreating the redirects. That said, I would not have done it myself- no admin has to delete anything and this is totally the wrong way to ask someone to do you a favour. The attitude shown by the way this request was made is totally unacceptable. WjBscribe 18:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

One comment here. Edokter said "Everything you've just mentioned are all the more reason to just delete any old redirect; like you said, it's no longer attached to the new account. And a new user creating the old username may find the old redirect going "WTF, who stole my userpage!"." - I'd just like to point out that under this scenario (a new user creating the old username) that old signatures will point to the new user. I would hope that the old names of renamed accounts are account-salted in some way to prevent this. Carcharoth 20:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * the user "Rambutan" has been created at 22:06, 13 October 2007 (there is no indication that this creation was made by User:Porcupine, though). -- lucasbfr <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk 14:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's still something that should be looked at in relation to CSD U1. Regardless of how you feel, it's pretty clear that U1 wasn't anticipated to be used outside of non-controversial situations. Also, though I don't care, citing privacy for the reason for deletion, just to be done with it, is just lame and should not be done again. -- Ned Scott 02:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, deleting the redirect while this discussion is still going on is also in bad taste. Trust me, if we don't actually deal with this, and just ignore it, it will pop up again and bite us in the butt. -- Ned Scott 02:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:J.R. Hercules
I have warned the editor about this edit. However, I think it needs to be expunged from Wikipedia, as it is outright libel about a solid contributer here. I asked Until(1 == 2) to do this, but he seemed to feel it was not within his scope of duties as administrator, and [encouraged me to take the problem elsewhere]. I have warned the offending editor myself, but as I said to Until(1==2), I think it might carry more weight if an admin added his or her voice to the issue. Jeffpw 06:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that the edit meets the requirements for oversight. Regarding Until, xe hasn't really done anything wrong; xe's not required to intervene. J.R. Hercules isn't actively editing and hasn't for about a month, so there's not much that could be done by an administrator about that user's behavior right now.  W ODU P  07:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WODUP, thank you for taking the time to look at this. My personal feeling is that calling someone a Nambla member is tantamount to calling them a pedophile. However, perhaps the editor who has been libeled should be the one to request oversight, in line with oversight protocol. In any event, I appreciate your taking the time to check into this. Jeffpw 07:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff, I will thank you not to misrepresent me like that, I never said anything about this not being within the scope of my duties. I said I was busy, in fact I told you that more than once because you kept posting about this while I was trying to research a project. I cannot imagine why an edit from early Sept. would be so urgent that you needed me to deal with it after I told you to take it to a noticeboard. 1 != 2  14:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Seemed to feel" would indicate that it was my interpretation of your comment, so I do not feel I was misrepresenting you. Further, I provided difs, so anyone curious could read for themselves precisely what it was you said. In any event, your reply here indicates to me that you acknowledge that it was well within your scope of duties, but you did not consider libel a matter of enough concern to even check into. That seems odd, given your posts on articles about WP:BLP and libel concerns, but I won't press the matter. But to be perfectly clear here, since I now feel it is you mischaracterizing me here, I messaged you about this matter a grand total of 2 times this morning. I don't see that as too much. Jeffpw 15:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about the need for oversight. A simple insult "I, an editor of no reputation, called you a nasty name/accusation such as Nambla" is not exactly earth shattering. It is a "potentially libellous accusation" so it does fall within oversight, but my feeling is not every nasty accusation without evidence is important. If I said "User:123 is a pedophile (murderer, has a small penis, is smelly)" would you really expect the big guns out to remove the statement? I'd like to think "ignore it" is more powerful, and I've ignored similar personal attacks before.... in that case, by a problem user I helped remove from the project. Perhaps if you could point to people of repute and sanity who will reassess the target's integrity and personality based upon this childish comment, it would carry more weight. Oversight is a serious act, and the disruption to the page when used is also non-zero; it's really not there for every "X person called person Y a nasty name", no matter if its slightly nasty, medium nasty, or very nasty. It's main role is (credible) libellous statements, personal identification, and the like - basically in principle, things that are likely to carry weight and possible impact. FT2 (Talk 15:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So Jeff has gone from accusing me of "not thinking it is within my scope" to "not thinking libel something to get concerned over". I ask you a second time not to misrepresent me. I was busy at the time, and now it has plenty of admin attention. Frankly I wonder why you seem more interested in my response to the matter than the matter itself. 1 != 2  15:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What more would you have me do, Until? I investigated the complaint, warned the user with diffs, brought the matter to your attention, again with diffs, and after I got the brush off from you I brought the matter to ANI, again providing diffs. You did...well, jack shit, actually, except for complaining I was bothering you. So please don't say I am not interested in the matter itself, because that would be a bald faced lie. Jeffpw 21:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I take responsibility for this minor dust-up. I was the one who originally went to Until for help in dealing with Hercules' unprofessional comments, in light of Until's previously engaged attitude in another pederasty-article-related disparaging remark affair. I had come away with the impression that he was interested in monitoring such incidents. I apologize for the misunderstanding, as far as I am concerned the matter is closed, at least as far as Until is concerned.


 * As for Hercules, and others of his ilk who in the future may take advantage of street zeitgeist to get in a kick at the underdog, perhaps it would be well for all of us to arouse in our minds the consciousness that attacks on the topic of historical pederasty, and on the editors who curate the related suite of articles, are pure homophobia and need to be dealt with accordingly.


 * Finally, as far as the accusations that I am a member of this or that organization, as long as proper action is taken to indicate that such comments are not condoned by Wikipedia authorities and that users cannot engage in that type of behavior with impunity, I will be content. What constitutes proper action will be for others, more versed in protocol, to decide. Haiduc 16:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can only see this incident in the light of the persistent ongoing POV-pushing on the topic of pederasty, one of the greatest frustrations of editing on LGBT issues on Wikipedia. Dybryd 18:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I reverted the statement, per the no personal attacks policy. Had I seen the statement when it was made, I'd prolly have blocked the editor. Blocks being not punitive, I don't think we can block now since the dispute is 1 month old. -- lucasbfr <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk 14:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Lucasbfr, for your reversion of the offending edit. I was hesitant to do that while there was a possibility it might be oversighted. Thanks, too, for the acknowledgment that the comment was serious enough to warrant a block. I was frankly amazed by the reaction of several admins about this incident. While it may be that they simply did not look closely enough at the situation to see the total picture and context, I also had the feeling that personal bias and distaste for the subject of the articles led to a "blame the victim" mentality. I could be wrong about that, and apologize if I am, but that is how it appeared to me. In any event, I agree about blocks not being punitive, so I suppose we can just let the matter rest.  Jeffpw 22:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Continued violations of WP:CIVIL
User:Neutralhomer was banned for 24 hours on September 3 by User:JzG for this uncivil edit summary. He continues to violate this policy, including calling myself a "confused" quitter as well as another editor a "nutjob." Additionally, based on the time frame, it appears as if he's counting the users that he has run off from various projects at the talk of his userpages.

I have tried many times in the past to bring numerous policies to User:Neutralhomer's attention, but have consistently had trouble getting through to him. I don't deny that I have lost my temper more than once with him, but I have always strived to stay within WP guidelines. Any assistance would be appreciated, as when he's editing in article space, he's usually fine. It's his actions in user space that tend to go off the deep end. Thanks for your time. JPG-GR 09:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As previous discussion on this board showed, that block by User:JzG should have never stood as that user had previously stated that he would block me as soon as he got the chance. He did, big deal, that was in September.  As for the above, I have done my best to be very patient (something of which I am not normally) with JPG-GR.  Especially when I had to to explain, over and over and over about the call signs on the templates.  This was a tad annoying.  If I lost my patience, it's probably because when you have explained something more times than I wish to count, and the user still doesn't get it, you get a tad annoyed.  But if you notice from JPG-GR's archived talk page, I never lost my temper.


 * As for my calling of JPG-GR a "confused quitter", the "confused" part was part of what he wrote on my talk page, the "quitter" part was because he was "quitting" WP:WPRS at that moment. Personally seemed like a temper tantrum to me.  But if JPG-GR is considering "confused quitter" as a violation of WP:CIVIL, then I apologize.


 * Finally, this isn't how many people I have run off, it is how many annoying and rude editors I have come in contact with have quit or been blocked from Wikipedia (both not by my own doing, contrary to what JPG-GR thinks.) Those two editors were JzG (quit) and Calton (blocked).  But, I give no names in that line, so that is not "incivil"...I like to call it a reminder. - <font color="#0000C8">NeutralHomer  T:C 09:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never seen such an instance of an editor throwing themselves at the noose... Neutralhomer, might I suggest that you take some time to read WP:COOL, and not dwell on the identities of those editors whose edits you have found to be rude and/or annoying. Concentrate on the encyclopedia and treat everyone as you would prefer to be treated. LessHeard vanU 12:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * LessHeard, I do my best to treat others the way I would like to be treated myself, having Aspergers kinda forces you to do that. But sadly, when talking to someone becomes something I hate to do, and I actually considered quitting because of two members (changed usernames because of one), the person seriously could care less about treating you the same way, then I have done all I can to try and be nice to that person.


 * Honestly, though, JPG-GR was never a person that caused me a migraine when I talked to him (the other mentioned users did). JPG-GR and I just had out disagreements and obviously with internet, talk pages sometimes aren't the best to convey ideas or opinions sometimes. - <font color="#0000C8">NeutralHomer  T:C 22:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ironically, how these two members made you feel is exactly how you've made me feel repeatedly this year. Apparently it's different when you're on the other side of the coin. JPG-GR 05:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with LHvU. Neutralhomer, I have already warned you about using your userspace for attack purposes, so there really no excuse. El_C 11:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is mine. It's no attack (take it as one, if you wish) but it is not. - <font color="#0000C8">NeutralHomer  T:C 22:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since everyone seems to be getting their drawers in a bunch of this comment, I returned it to the previous "Whiskey! Tango! Foxtrot!", which no one cared about. - <font color="#0000C8">NeutralHomer T:C 22:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

anonymous user making hostile edits to Celia Green
Anonymous user 86.139.76.130 (who also uses 86.160.229.161) is disputing the content of Celia Green. His edits (e.g. this one) seem like vandalism in the sense they are clearly intended to be insulting rather than improving the quality of the article. I have pointed this out to him when removing his edits but he has simply reinstated them. I would be grateful for advice.FWadel 21:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if those edits are clearly intending to be insulting per se, but in any case, you may find the information at Vandalism helpful, including the various steps that can be followed. I think, though, that this is a content dispute, and not an uncommon one at that. Natalie 19:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:AGNPH
- until the block expires.
 * See 

This user was only blocked for one day, however I don't think that is appropriate given his violations. This user violated the 3RR on AGNPH by re-adding a link to Encyclopedia Dramatica (ED).

Two problems there: 1: Violating WP:3RR 2:Should be noted, that I've explained the following to the user on his talk page: As an ArbCom ruling (Requests for arbitration/MONGO), you can be blocked for re-adding the link to ED after you have been notified of this ruling. I thoroughly explained this to the user on his talk page, yet he still added the link. Is this block appropriate given the two serious problems? - Rjd0060 00:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you asked the blocking admin? I would probably have done an indef as a disruption-only account, but have no extreme feelings either way. -- B  01:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I toyed with an indef block for disruption, but I really wanted to try a short block first to see if the creep user would see the error of his ways. If not, then I'll be happy to turn it into an indef block.  I wasn't about to block indef for a first violation of 3RR, and an ArbCom block seemed to be opening a can of worms that, frankly, I'd prefer to keep closed.  - Philippe &#124; Talk 01:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for explaining it to me.  I was just thrown by the ruling that said "Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica ... may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users."   I tried very hard to explain to this user, as evident from his talk page.  To me, it seemed like a clear cut long term block would have happened there.  - Rjd0060 01:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I suspect I'm going to be sorry I didn't indef block this one, but I tend to want to err toward discretion.  Then, if he steps out of line, I'll swat him a little extra-hard - that way he can't come back and say "THEY INDEF BLOCKED ME RIGHT OFF!  ZOMG!" - because we can prove that we gave a warning block.  - Philippe &#124; Talk 01:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I understand. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me.  I was quite confused about the short block, but I suppose I get it. - Rjd0060 01:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article looks like it was C&P'd from WikiFur's article on the same. -Jéské ( v^_^v ) 02:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, but my understanding is they're GFDL. - Philippe &#124; Talk 03:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I already noted that on the AfD. -Jéské ( v^_^v ) 03:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he's been indefblocked for sockpuppetry ... good riddance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboy96 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Urgent Need for Oversight on Paul McCartney
I have to go to work and don't have any time to deal but if you check the history of Paul McCartney you will see a couple of revisions that need deleting quickly. I tried deleting them myself but the server kept timing out. May be something we need oversight on. Can someone pick this up for me please? Also, don't follow the link in the second edit summary - it will crash your browser and its trying to install something. Spartaz Humbug! 07:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Meh, who needs to go to work anyway Spartaz Humbug! 08:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Done?  Daniel  08:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It needs oversight. I can't do anything about the move logs. I have already sent an e-mail to the oversight list but it may take a dev to sort out the page log. Any ideas? Spartaz Humbug! 08:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, oversight can't be used on page logs, but this is very likely one of the rare instances in which a developer may be willing to purge an entry from logs. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman bum and angel 20:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this is something that could be repeated over and over. Probably something we need to learn to live with.  Who ever looks at page move logs anyway?  I don't think we should even bother with WP:OVERSIGHT/developers or it will become a full-time job.  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That was precisely my thought. Joe 21:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

recently correctly blocked for having a username violation, seen as it appears to be random strings of characters. Unfortunately now has unblocked the username in question yet with no valid reason to do so and did so without discussing it with PeaceNT (although he has since entered into disalogue with her) – the name is clearly an infringement of the policy, rather than wheel war over this, I am bringing this to the attention of a wider audience. As of late, Rspeer has been trying hard to change the username policy by dicussion, however this latest move is simply something he doesn't agree with in the policy so has chosen to use the unblock button when he shouldn't have done.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  13:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think this is a borderline username issue. I have some extended family members of Indian heritage whose real names would rival this user. The syllables are phonetic. It's possible this name has a meaning in some language. My $0.02. Ronnotel 13:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ronnotel, I have to disagree with this one, "Usernames that consist of a confusingly random or lengthy sequence of characters" aren't allowed - I'm sure plenty of users will see this as confusingly random. It's very difficult to tell Yaptitasbamasrakaaslatakanka from Yaptitasdamasrakaaslatakanka.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  13:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, to the majority of non-Indian English readers I would agree and therefore cede the point. However, I would submit that an Indian user might not be so easily fooled. Ronnotel 13:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It just isn't practical for our purposes, here. One could always use an abbreviation and cite the full name on the user page. El_C 13:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ryan Postlethwaite and Ryan Postlethwite aren't really that different either, and also quite long. Who is to say whether it's random or not? Apparently it's not just keyboard smattering, as at least one a was inserted between every two consonants. Is this somehow not anonymous? 15:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by the fact that Ryan would disallow this username for being "confusing", but would allow usernames in other character sets. It's very difficult to tell Yaptitasbamasrakaaslatakanka from Yaptitasdamasrakaaslatakanka. - that's a reason to block Yaptitasdamasrakaaslatakanka (names similar to exisiting user) but not Yaptitasbamasrakaaslatakanka.  The username block is probably valid though - couldn't the user have Yaptitas with a sig?  Dan Beale-Cocks  13:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To me this looks like random letters, and this is the english wikipedia, that's why I believe it should be blocked.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  13:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow me to summarize a finding I'm sure we can all endorse: We assume the letters are not random but were chosen in good faith as per the scenario I outlined above. However, as Ryan points out, they are likely to be confusing to the average user and therefore the name should be changed by consulting with the user and explaining the policy. Ronnotel 14:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The name gets zero g-hits. If this were a real name, wouldn't it likely get a g-hit somewhere?  If the user were to ask to be unblocked and say that his name is Yaptitasbama Srakaaslata Kanka, we could assume good faith and unblock, but on the surface, this name looks like random letters and it ought to be kept blocked as a violation of the username policy. -- B  14:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't use the "google test" on people's names. How do you know how to break it up? As an example from here, googling "danbealecocks -wikipedia" also gets you zero hits.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  14:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite. And more generally, I will never understand why people even think unsuitable usernames should be blocked immediately. If this is policy, it's one of the most absurdly stupid policies we have and should be changed post-haste. Weigh it up. The risk of losing a positive contributor by scaring them away when they see that terrible template ("your username is rude or inflammatory") is infinitely more serious than the damage done if that contributor makes a few edits under their confusing username and are then told, politely: "hey, some people might find your name confusing, would you consider changing it?". I have not the slightest idea where people think the problem is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, a very quick google search yields this: . Congrats, we've probably just scared away somebody who might have contributed information from the perspective of a native American tribe from Nicaragua. Not as if that's a big loss, because as we all know, the Wiki is full of contributors with knowledge of obscure indigenous population groups from less developed countries. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly, it doesn't hurt to approach this in good faith as a valid name; but ask the user to shorten it for the typing ease of other contributors nonetheless. If this is what happened here: good. If not: oh well, next time. El_C 15:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * However, this still apears to be random characters, and will do to most english speaking people in watchlists. It isn't broken up like a name, and would most likely cause problems whenever they edited.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  15:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * English is not a requirement for usernames. It can't be. With Meta pushing for unifying usernames across projects, we have to allow anything that would be a reasonable username in any language. This is the same reason we need to allow usernames with non-Latin characters.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) At the risk of sounding preachy, an example of why WP:AGF is so important. Ronnotel 15:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And uw-username. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman bum and angel 15:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just looking at the template . (Oops, sorry, I meant the other one, uw-ublock). It's terrible. Sad thing is, all through the years people have tried to make the message more friendly, and they were prevented from doing so. As long as we do have the silly policy of blocking apparently good-faith names on sight, we should at least distinguish between two templates: One more sternly worded for those names that are truly offensive or rude, and one much more friendly and welcoming for cases were a name was chosen in good faith but may be deemed inappropriate for some other reason, like here. But really, as I said, we should get rid of the blocking rule altogether. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, edit conflict; I was just about to ask. uw-username seems rather friendly to me, if boilerplate (as all templated messages are by nature).  &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman bum and angel 15:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps ideally those two templates would be UsernameBlocked and UsernameHardBlocked. If the username was soft-blocked, we should demonstrate that we're more than willing to assume good faith and that it's not the end of their editing career.  &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman bum and angel 15:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For most people who get username blocked, it is the end of their editing career. With that startlingly unfriendly welcome (not just the template, but the "you have been blocked" message), very few put forth the effort to come back. "Nicer" block messages won't fix this, because a block is a block no matter how you word it.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  15:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I think the purpose of this discussion is to come up with ways to lessen that effect.  &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman bum and angel 15:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes we spend our time arguing about things which don't deserve much fuss. The account got 0 contribs till this moment and i really doubt that this account was created in order to edit. I'll go further and assume that it was opened just for the sake of trolling as it seems that creating a longish username account w/ 0 edits is really trolling. Whatever is the case, leave it there and keep an eye. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It likely was not opened just for the sake of trolling, as Future Perfect at Sunrise demonstrated. We have to assume good faith here.  &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman bum and angel 15:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Startling and completely unjustified assumption of bad faith. The account was blocked some three hours after it was created, and it was evidently created by somebody connected with Yapti Tasba Masraka Nanih Aslatakanka, who might well have made valuable contributions. (Incidentally, it would still qualify for a username block for being the name of an organisation, but the point is, we should do that after we welcome a user. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I expected it (AGF) ;) Well, yes and you're totally right and it doesn't bother me to see the account unblocked as much as it bothers me to see it blocked w/o prior warning. The thing is that the account was created 2 days ago and since then there was no edit. Add to that the username controversy. My comment is based on today's situation and not on the 13th one. Anyway, PeaceNT would have waited instead of blocking the account w/ no edit whatsoever. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  15:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So if you don't start editing immediately, it's ok to block? Honestly, you're not making much sense here. That's certainly no reason to expect he created the account to troll. "it's long and he didn't use - apparent troll." I just don't get the logic. Is this somehow not anonymous? 16:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So if you don't start editing immediately, it's ok to block? Oh no. Who said that? -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  16:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "The thing is that the account was created 2 days ago and since then there was no edit. Add to that the username controversy." I'm sorry if this was not meant as a justification for the block, but that's the way I interpreted it. Is this somehow not anonymous? 16:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * and that explicitly means that it is acceptable for someone to think that the account was created in order to troll but in no way it is a green light to block since you don't know about the owner response. I have explicitly stated that PeaceNT would have waited instead of blocking the account. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  16:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a comment - the username at the start of this thread can at least be read and typed by English language people, unlike the apparently perfectly acceptable Hebrew and Arabic usernames one sees. And if "long names" are forbidden, then the best way to achieve this is to have a limit on the length that can be created, instead of letting people create long names then going for them afterwards. DuncanHill 22:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)