Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive80

A vandal with dozens of IPs
An anonymous editor employing a large number of IPs has been making continuous controversial edits and reverts of content at pages related with the history of nuclear power in Argentina. The most vandalized pages are Huemul Project and its talk page, but Ronald Richter, Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica, Instituto Balseiro and related ones have also received their share.

I have compiled a partial list of IPs showing the same pattern of extreme subjective bias and repeated non-consensual edits: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

The IPs in this list can all be found at one or another of the IP ranges traced by this query to LACNIC: . It is practically impossible to deal with vandalism from them with the usual methods, and the editor knows it.

I have no idea where else to post this. Feel free to move it if it doesn't belong, but please advise on what to do. The established editors of those pages don't want to give them up to a vandal. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You can try short-duration range blocks. The ranges seem to be: 200.43.201.0/24, 200.45.6.0/24, 200.45.150.0/24, 200.82.18.0/24. -- Curps 05:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * , Making Personal Attacks, probably Nkcs or Pablo-flores or OneEuropeanHeart wrote: "ESTE GIL SE LA COME Y LE GUSTA BIEN DURITA POR ATRAS", a very offensive statement in spanish to 200.45.6.10, (please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:200.45.6.10&oldid=40503654)200.45.6.10 02:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

WHOIS results for 200.123.178.246 Generated by www.DNSstuff.com

Location: Argentina [City: Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires]

I seems that the person who recently wrote personal attacks related with the Huemul Project page is Nkcs. See contributions of 200.68.127.154. Probably Nkcs or one of its partners logged with this IP after 200.82.18.5 to try to hide his misbehavior. 200.45.6.126 13:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 

200.45.6.126 signning off now. Thanks. 200.45.6.126 16:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, Tony Sidaway wrote (both to OneEuropeanHeart and Pablo-flores) "I see no vandalism here". 

--200.45.6.58 15:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism from
This IP recently vandalised Thirteen Colonies twice  You can see from this user's talk page User talk:142.32.208.238 that they have been warned for vandalism before. You can see from their user activity that they have made many sets of vandalism, notebly here are some examples. SirGrant 19:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

More vandalism today after I posted my origional post here are some examples SirGrant 00:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I had to unblock because of collateral damage. Please let's keep a very close eye on this IP.  Thanks.  Chick Bowen 04:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There appear to be several other closely associated IPs, all of which have long blocks on them:

ARIN says: "British Columbia Systems Corporation"
 * OrgAbusePhone: +1-250-952-6000
 * OrgAbuseEmail: cschelp@gems3.gov.bc.ca

A Canadian provincial government e-mail address, no less. -- Curps 05:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

TheDoctor10
I am a bit concerned over the recent contributions by TheDoctor10. He's been trolling around a lot recently, making personal attacks, personal threats, threats for disruption and general harrassment. Some example of this are:
 * After a dispute with ed g2s, he decided to change his signature to the following:
 * --Someone who thinks User:Ed g2s is getting to big for his boots (talk)
 * He was warned about this, and blocked for it. He still hadn't removed it when the block expired.


 * Harassment of Khaosworks.      Later:
 * Harassment of FireFox.     Later:

Also see his talk page, Ed g2s's talk page (more specifically:  ). He has been blocked at least 8 times, and once earlier today, for 3 weeks. I don't think this is enough, nor will it resolve the situation. Something obviously needs to be done. What do others think would be appropriate? Any input would be appreciated. Thanks, — FireFox • T • 19:41, 8 March 2006
 * At this point, I think that requesting arbitration is the only way to go. He already had an RFC, and numerous people have tried to explain to him why his behaviour is unacceptable. It's time to put a stop to this.--Sean Black (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Do we need to go to Arbcom with this when there are open and obvious threats of disruption? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, indef blocked as of now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 00:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You have the stones that I lack. Good show. --Golbez 01:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I mainly issued the indef block because of the user's intent to disrupt WP, on purpose, to annoy khaosworks and other people and issuing threats to them. IMHO, that should not be tollerated on WP. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 02:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No arguments from me. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Or me. I went over to leave a message on Khaosworks' talk page about something and noticed the one post in which the user clearly indicated his intent to disrupt Wikipedia once the second season started airing in the UK. 23skidoo 23:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Cuba
It seems to me that El C [] appears to be trying to impose his political views on all material in []. Please view [] with especial attention to [],[], and []. Thank you for your time and attention El Jigue 3-8-06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.240.227.15 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 9 March 2006
 * Firstly, this doesn't belong here-it's a content dispute. Secondly, it seems to me that you espressed your disagreement with El C's edits with accusations regarding his political beliefs, which is not only irrelevant, but an assumption of bad faith. My advice is to discuss the article (not the subject of the editors) on the talk page in a civil manner. Cheers, Sean Black (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I see that you have a history of vandalism and biased, specifically anti-Communist, editing. While I of course support reform and education, that does not make me confident . In any case, I suggest that you review Wikipedia policies before editing further.--Sean Black (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Alvam
Anybody remember this guy?

You already know how it turned out: -- Curps 03:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sigh. At least the guy claiming to be WoW has appeared to live up to his word. Alvam's apology did not seem sincere - it was basically, "I can't vandalize as well as WoW, so I quit." --Golbez 04:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive contributor to mathematics articles
(and his older sockpuppet ) is adding material without references at mathematics articles, and is very insistent on his changes, generating edit wars with the mathematics community, see the following article histories decimal representation, real number, and twin prime conjecture, and more recently Chen prime.

WAREL has been blocked for 3RR and ever since is careful to revert up to three times, but that is no less disruptive. After the block, he warred again, he has been warned to not continue, yet he did two reverts after that.

WAREL has been banned at the Japanese Wikipedia for disruptive behavior User talk:WAREL (at the bottom), he had lied about the reason for the ban, and attempted to twice delete that info about the causes for the ban and.

His behaviour has been discussed twice at the math wikiproject (1 and 2).

Comments? I would suggest a one-week block. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not looked at the details of this user's contributions, but my inclination is that Wikipedians are here for the purposes of disseminating information in a neutral and balanced manner. If this editor has shown consistently over a long period that they have no intention of modulating their editing approach in a spirt of cooperation, and that they are not willing to be gracious regarding the factuality or impact of their edits, I see no problem in instituting a prolonged block. Perhaps a week may be too long though. Would 3-4 days suffice instead? I generally advocate for shorter blocks, as long blocks may tend to defer present problems into the future. --HappyCamper 04:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to say that I was one of the mathematicians involved in reverting WAREL, so for that reason I would not attempt a block myself. If a neutral party would be willing to examine to evidence and decide what to do about it, that would be much appreciated. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would support an extended block of WAREL if he continues to behave in this manner (constant reverts without discussion or references). I'll try to moniter his activities. -- Fropuff 06:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Apostrophe
If an administrator would review the contributions of as there appear to be multiple violations of WP:CIV and WP:NPA by this editor. A few examples are: moron; idiot; idiot and expletive; expletive. Thank you for your attention. Netkinetic 05:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have warned the user to be nicer with his edit summaries. Stifle 13:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of Ruhollah Khomeini
User:CltFn has been constantly attacking the Khomeini article     quoting a source that is not verifiable (only anti-Khomeini websites mention it ). He has also made incivil remarks, dodging the issue of verifiability. I request that an admin please take action as I cannot keep reverting him due to 3RR. Thank you. SouthernComfort 06:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have sourced all the insertions, however it seems that SouthernComfort would like to censor the page and delete anything that does not suit his POV.--CltFn 06:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

He has also been reverting my delete tags from his dubious images and article regarding the non-verifiable book rather than providing any explanations  SouthernComfort 06:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You cannot just go and put a delete tag on a properly copyright tagged image just because you do not like the image.--CltFn 06:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a candidate for speedy deletion--if you want to nominate it for deletion, list it at WP:IFD. Have the two of you considered mediation? We could protect the article, but we'd much rather that the two of you stopped edit-warring. Chick Bowen 06:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Mediation would be absurd since the book is either non-existent or an out-and-out forgery - it isn't verifiable. He has only provided a web link to an anti-Khomeini website. No biography or history of the Iranian revolution mentions it. SouthernComfort 06:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Come on, your scholarship on the matter is lacking , it is discussed or alluded to on the CSPAN interview with Azar Nafisi whose book page you reverted out of spite in this rever war you are involved in. I have seen this material on many Iranian blogger web sites and it is amply sourced on the internet. I have also provided you with a photo of the book and page scans of it , which you can read for yourself. --CltFn 06:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Blogs aren't generally verifiable sources. If it is as you say amply sourced on the internet, perhaps just cite it here to prove your point? &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC [| Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]
I need some assistance with clarifiation of the above RFC and the use of sources banned by WP:RS. The question is simple and I ask for a simple clarification. I need to know if message board and mailing list sources can be used as primary or secondary sources. The article listed above uses them extensively, in fact, 85% of the article content originates from LKML, an anonymous mailing list in a biography article and the materials are cited as both primary and secondary sources. Please advise.

Also, the site instructions were somewhat confusing. The Mediation page implies you must first address an RFC and also address the issue with AN\I before attemptin moderation. Waya sahoni 08:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There has also been much discussion of the underlying issue on the articles talk page, although even content from a week ago has for some reason been archived. The RFC itself is malformed, with both "positions" written by one author (no bias there then) and a list of individuals which appears to have nothing to do with the underlying issue, other than those being ones who have disagreed with the authors position and seems nothing but an attempt to discredit those editors. --pgk( talk ) 08:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * NOTE: This "admin" is a plant from the SCOX message board here to enforce that article.  He's also one of the principal editors of the content.  He should refrain from getting involved -- at least as an admin. Waya sahoni 16:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't irony wonderful, to quote yourself a few lines down "Also, Wikipedia has a policy about users making allegations...", FWIW to date I haven't made any administrative actions regarding the article, though of course my actions are open to the same scrutiny as any other administrator --pgk( talk ) 19:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The RfC is indeed bogus since both positions were authored by User:Waya sahoni. There's really nothing to "request." Further, I was involved in the voting beacuse User:Waya sahoni is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, which is Mr. Merkey himself. So in effect, Mr. Merkey is editing his own biography (against wikipedia policy) and filing RfC requests on it when he doesn't get his way. It's truly a massive disruption to the entire process, which is why Mr. Merkey was blocked from wikipedia to begin with. --BWD(talk) 13:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, Wikipedia has a policy about users making allegations and/or attempting to expose or reveal a users identity. The next time this user makes such a statement, I would appreciate them being reminded of WP:NPA.  Waya sahoni 16:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a vexatious RFC. It's not certified, the two positions are not exhaustive, and it's badly formatted. I'm inclined to delete it for being uncertified, anyone else got an opinion? Stifle 13:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is it uncertified? . I have certified the RFC and signed it. Waya sahoni 16:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of Ten Commandments
64.107.135.2 has vandalized this page twice this morning. Would an admin take a look at this and warn the user? Thanks! --CTSWyneken 15:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Warned. For future reference, you can do that yourself: just use the templates described at Vandalism.  Most vandals will stop before you get to level 4. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Zeq
From the decision, Requests for arbitration/Zeq, concerning Zeq: "He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing." On this basis I request that Zeq be banned from editting the article Machsom Watch, which he is intent on disrupting in accordance with his own opinions on that human-rights organization. --Zero 12:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have requested Zero several times to engage in discussion instead of reverts (of my edits and of other 3rd part editors). A request for mediation on the dispute have been filled(Requests_for_mediation) The dispute involve 7 parties(Zero on one side and other 6 editors) - two have already accepted mediation. Zero did not.

Zero is filing this request for ban to prevent participating in the dispute reolution process. He does so after I placed the mediation request on his talk page. I would like the opportunity to follow the dispute resolution process. Zero should be reminded that he also must follow Dispute reolution process (per same ArbCom decision) and he should be encouraged to accept mediation. Thank you. So far Zero have not responded to the request:

I am not disrupting this article, in fact it was zero who removed sourced content until other editors have jumped in and explained to him that he can not do that. There is also dicussion in talk page in which several editors are against what Zero has been doing but he keeps reverting without forming consensus. Zeq 13:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are views of other editors who do not see my edits as disruption but as manifestation of NPOV policy:











In fact Zero behaviour in this article is so bad that maybe mediation is not enough and ArbCom could finally hear a case about Zero's disruption and other violations ? Zeq 15:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Zero, please refrain from presenting a content dispute that you are involved in with all other editors on Machsom Watch as a disruption by Zeq. You know it very well that per WP:Probation "Striking out at users on probation is strongly discouraged." Instead of doing your utmost to have Zeq banned, you might be well-advised to be more active in the request for mediation, which has recently been filed regarding that article. Pecher Talk 17:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

User: Prasi90 blocked, but abuses talk pages
User:Prasi90 has already been blocked but continue to abuse talk pages (Talk:2006 Varanasi bombings as chat pages), and on being reminded, responded aggresively to me on my talk page User_talk:AshishG. This is not personal peeves but something to keep in mind if and when admins decide to unblock him. Also, if you decide, to block him from editing even talk pages too. Thanks.
 * Note that Prasi90 has in fact been unblocked, hence the ability to edit your talk pages. Blocked users are only able to edit their own talk page, and nowhere else. Given the reasons the editor has been blocked before, I'd think he's on a pretty short road to a pretty long block if he continues. -Splash talk 02:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Aucaman and User:Heja helweda and User:Diyako
Anti-Iranian attacks are taking place on Iranian articles. Articles include: Persian people, Iranian peoples, Ibn Sina, Al Biruni etc all mentioned in here: User_talk:ManiF

Mainly by User:Aucaman and User:Heja helweda and User:Diyako, please also read this comment User_talk:Heja_helweda which reads "The modern Farsis are a semitic-Turkic people. We should prove this to the world"..

I hope admins can take this matter on hand, because a lot of time is being wasted by Iranians providing sources on the talk pages, however disputes carry on and edit wars etc etc with no intention of wikipedia's interest, but all politically motivated individuals are doing their best to start a small war on here.

I leave it to you, --Kash 14:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I support this request. User:Aucaman, User:Heja helweda and User:Diyako are engaged in a systematic campaign of misinformation, maliciously editing/disputing/deleting the Iran-related articles, pushing their anti-Iranian POV, ignoring the majority consensus and authoritative sources, applying the straw-man falsification approach, trying to establish new 'facts" based on their own personal assumptions and political beliefs. Please take a closer look at this issue. --ManiF 18:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Furthermore; User:Aucaman has been warned about the mentioned actions by several users on several occasions. Yet, in clear defiance of the wikipedia rules, he keeps reverting the warnings on his talk page.  --ManiF 18:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The contingent of Persian/Iranian editors is strongly nationalist and extremely hostile to any editors who challenge Persian ethnic domination, speak for minority peoples, or challenge a corporatist, ultra-nationalist version of Iranian history that sees the "nation" and the "people" extending far back into prehistory. The current trend in history and archaeology is to challenge this sort of nationalism. See Historiography and nationalism. Challengers should insist that their version be allowed as an alternate view, rather than insisting that it is "the truth"; the nationalists should be willing to allow both versions in the article. Zora 19:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) You are generalizing a group of editors based upon your personal perceptions and biases.

2) This is not about nationalism, revisionist theories and assumptions that can't supported by any authoritative sources have no place on wikipedia.

3) Making outrageous and unsubstantiated claims that "the modern Farsis are a semitic-Turkic people. We should prove this to the world" and engaging in a campaign of misinformation and deception to push your POV and advance your political goals does not qualify as "speaking for minority peoples". --ManiF 20:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I don`t like jumping on the band wagon, however, it does seem that user Aucaman think the article about [persian people] has anti-semetic words like Aryan, even after I gave him refrences that say it describes the ancestors of Iranians. And user User:Heja helweda does not simply write a section in the discussion page, he or she floods the discussion pages with multiple headings and copies and pastes his or her texts in many other discussion pages. It is very disruptive. I do kind of agree that these users are cause chronic disruptions without too much merit. ThanksZmmz 20:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree with the claims against these three wikipedians. I have seen many of the editing they have done and they are mostly baseless and outrageous claims trying to say many people and Iranians are not the same people as Persians of the past. They edit these articles with out any refrences and most people have repeatedly told them to stop, but they keep on doing it agian.


 * While I was trying to take part in certain discussions in a peaceful and respectful manner, I have been subject to numerous personal attacks. Please kindly check out the link. I have been accused to be Extremist, Nationalists, Pro-Seperatist Kurd, Iranian-hater, time waster. Heja Helweda 00:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, these were not toward you, secondly It was because your fellow friend Aucman, has been calling all Iranian wikipedians nationalists! thirdly..

Talk:Persian_people and Talk:Persian_people shows how racist you guys really are, and you are infact carrying out research on to this idea posted here: User_talk:Heja_helweda which reads "The modern Farsis are a semitic-Turkic people. We should prove this to the world"..

Which again, looks like you are Anti-Iranian and carrying out original research which does NOT belong to wikipedia. Its a whole campaign which has to be stopped.--Kash 00:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, since I was invited to this discussion, I basically have to say the following. Our minds work in surprising ways at the subconscious level. We're not even aware of it. Even at the risk of seeming too philosophical, I would request all the editors involved to take some time off and introspect a bit deeper on why do you want those changes made. In what way will it comfort your mind/ego? What if the reality were otherwise? Once you meditate on this, perhaps the whole thing won't look as important to you as it is looking now. Come back to the discussion from that unattached position, and I'm sure the entire issue will be resolved in no time. My personal take: As a person who identifies himself as Aryan, and living in a social system which kept intermixing impossible for millenia, I'll still be surprised to learn that no intermixing ever occured. deeptrivia (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no question that some 'mixings' have happened, however this has happened everywhere in the world. It has not been especially significant enough to mention it in Iranian articles. This is because the arabisation of for example Egypt, have been truely significant, and the original berbers are only a small percentage of population these days, and they have totally lost their culture. On the other hand, in Iran this is not the case, Iranians are so proud of their culture that even over a thousand years of being of mainly muslim population, they still celebrate the pre-historic Zoroastrian festival of Norouz. This is why there is no need to mention 'guess work', 'estimates', or some obsecure studies about possible mixings and inter-marriages, because they will not be useful to the article. These, as you must agree after reviewing the current attacks, are part of a campaign to change Iranian's identity which they have kept for thousands of years. --Kash 10:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kash and others

Some of these editors are extremely racist and anti Iranian. And whenever we try to correct them we are all called extremist nationalist and they are quick to generalize like Zora.

Some of their comments are extremely disturbing like the one who was trying to delete the world Persian by saying that no such race exist and the one who is trying to say that we are a combination of Semitic and Turkic and he wants to prove it to the world!! Obviously they are on a mission to erase the word “Persian” in any way they can. One of them wrote a paragraph basically implying that Persians are Arab by blood because there has been some interracial marriages after Arab invasion of Iran!!!! Totally refusing to mention that many other races, Greek, Turkish, Russian, …etc has also invaded Iran throughout the history. They are politically motivated and they are very biased.

Gol 03:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to weigh in on this. For the record, I am a secular person of Jewish background. I don't think the word "Aryan" smacks of racism when used in the narrow sense related to Persian ethnic heritage. (When it is used to mean "Indo-European", that is another matter.) However, because of its tricky connotations in the Western world, mostly due to its use by the Nazis, the term should be glossed whenever it is used. That is to say, on first mention in an article there should always be at least a specific link and typically a clarifying statement explaining the sense in which the word is used. For the opposite extreme&mdash;Nazi use as a seal of approval completely detached from actual ethnic heritage&mdash;see honorary Aryan.

As for any suggestion that the Persians are Arabs, it is really hard to imagine something sillier. I don't even know where to begin on such a ridiculous statement. It's as if someone were to point at Romania's one-time Hohenzollern monarchs and at the Transylvanian Saxons and say that therefore Romanians are German. - Jmabel | Talk 16:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's even sillier to claim that there exists a group of people that doesn't contain some admixture of genes. We have some Persian editors claiming that "we have no Arab blood, well, only a tiny little bit, not enough to count" -- which goes against common sense and current scientific knowledge. Claiming that were NO Indo-European speaking tribes isn't right, but claiming that all the people who speak an Indo-European language are descendents of IE tribes is dead wrong. Language goes by nurture, not genetics. Both sides in the dispute would do well to do some reading in linguistics and physical anthropology. Zora 17:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No one is pure Zora and don’t try to say that we claimed that because we did not. Would you like to question how “German” the German people are? After all they can not be 100% German can they? We carry blood of many different races and no one claims that we have NO outside blood. But some editors were questioning the legitimacy of the term Persian by saying that no such race exists!! That we were mixed to a such degree that we should no longer be called Persian!! If that is the case then there is no other race in the world either since on one has stayed pure. how about removing the name of each and every race in the world? These editors are biased and motivated based on personal issues. Britannic says Iranian people are descendants of Aryans and I am sure its writers knew that anyone with common sense would realized that it does not mean all Iranians today are Pure Aryans but that their original ancestors were Aryans. All we want to do is mention exactly what Britannica says.

Gol 20:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC) I have been on Wikipedia since late 2004. I have around 12000 edits. Here is what I have observed of the mentioned parties involved:
 * User:Aucaman: I do not know him/her. I cant really say anything about this user. Honestly, I think this user is only jumping on the bandwagon for the sake of polemics, and is simply misinformed about some realities.
 * User:Diyako: This user has a good history of malicious anti-Iranian edits. It took me User:Refdoc, User:Dr.Hamed, User:TimBits and others two months to stop him from erasing the history and existence of the Azeri minority in West Azarbaijan Province of Iran, when he tried wiping out information pertaining to the Azeris in favor of a Kurdish one. Diyako is also the person who initiated the campaign to delete the Iranian people page, totally ignoring the majority consensus. And he keeps accusing everyone of attacking him while he has a sad history of attacking others. See here on this page who first initiates the name calling. There he calls me "a racist Qashqai turk pasdar terrorist pro ahmadinejad..." Diyako, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Heja Helweda is one of the greatest anti-Persian editors currently active on the internet. She has been disseminating mis-information not only on WP, but also in other places on the web: See here. Where it involves Kurds, I've also seen anti-Arab edits from this user too.--Zereshk 21:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is unfortunate that such editors have made Wikipedia a megaphonic platform for their racist anti-Iranian propaganda. But as I said before, these people are actually helping out western information agencies preparing for war against Iran. Before any war can happen, there are always preparations made on the internet to incline popular perception against the target country (previously Iraq, now Iran).


 * Therefore I support this request.--Zereshk 21:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting! These Iranian (Farsi) users disagree with any edit done by other non-Iranian wikipedians. They have their own defintion (their own POV) and want to push it through threatening! I invite all admins to check whether who are neutral and who are pushing their pov through their hostile behavior and constant personal attacks.
 * Thanks  D iyako Talk + 21:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * First this returns to when I was new on wikipedia and you despite of being an old wikipedian several times attacked me with most bad words. Second you have continued it even till this time which if necessary I can provide links to all of them in five minutes. Third, You Farsis (Iranians) who due to political and economical reasons have more access to internet when a wikipedian from Kurdish minority comes to wikipedia imidiately disagree with him, call him in every talk page separatist, and mispresent him to all other Iranians in a bad way. For example your links refereing that I am from CIA.!!! admins will know you.  D iyako Talk + 23:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly support this request. I [am] believe it or not as neutral and fair as it can get.  Moreover, I never would want to support anyone who is biased, and tries to force their personal beliefs on others.  I am a student, and only stand on the side of facts.  But after seeing quotes like this, this page by user Talk, who unfair personal attack actually says, : "In fact I am discussing with a racist Qashqai turk pasdar terrorist pro ahmadinejad who even do not recognize UN emblem and think it is PDK's" Diyako, 03:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)”,  and similar quotes from the two other users in question, I am almost convinced now, that these three users [may] have formed some sort of weird alliance or cabal, and do have their own personal politics involved in this.  And, I have to tell you from experience, it is almost impossible to compromise with those who have a religious or political agenda.  For the past year these three users, User:Aucaman, User:Diyako, and User:Heja helweda have systematically reverted articles, flooded discussion pages with repetitive rhetoric without providing authoritative sources, refused to compromise with others, personally attacked others, and put banners on almost every single article which includes, Persia, Iranian people, Persian people, Persian Empire, Aryan, the word Arya, and Indo-Iranian.  I invite the admins to look up the word Aryan for themselves, and not just take our word: apparently the use of this word in certain articles is these users` latest problem, even though evidence from encyclopedias was provided to them that shows the word describes an entire ethnic group and culture.  Please take a look at this mediation link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02_Persian_people.  I also think it is necessary for the admins to read some of these articles, and discussion pages for themselves.  It seems, there is no compromise with these three users; there [has] to be some sort of ban, so that those who sincerely try to write legitimate articles in an encyclopedia would not throw their hands down and in disgust, and leave Wikipedia because of a few problem users.  I just do not know what else we can possibly do, it seems endless, mediation pages, third opinions, warnings; nothing seems to work. ThanksZmmz 01:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly Approve for the blocking of these users. they never want to compromise, and continuously vandalise!Iranian Patriot 04:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Support as per Zereshk's reasons. SouthernComfort 07:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

These Iranian users lost the discusstion and want admins block us!  D iyako Talk + 07:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with this request. These users have proven beyond any doubts, by their extremely anti-Iranian edits, personal accusations, and refusal to accept or even look at scholarly evidence, that they do not have noble intentions in editing pages on Wikipedia. They are simply a number of extremists who are using Wikipedia as a platform to spread falsehoods supporting their political ideologies. They have been treated by the outmost respect by the other editors. Unlike the exclusively-Kurdish, anti-Iranian, anti-Persian, at times even Anti-Azeri stance by these Kurdish editors, the Iranian editors dealing with them have always shown the most of respect for the Kurdish and other ethnic groups of Iranian peoples. The behavior of these anti-Iranian users is unacceptable and dangerous and must be dealt with accordingly. Shervink 15:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

Strong Support All of my reasons are the same as everyone else here trying to stop these users from vandalising!! --( Aytakin ) | Talk 21:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: The way to deal with these people is to take them to ArbCom. I think we have a case to ban them from Iranian articles based on their obsession with dismantling Iranian articles. We did this once with another user. He was banned permanently from editing specific articles.--Zereshk 00:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Another user has voiced his support here.--Zereshk 00:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, Diyako, Heja, and also a user named Ahwaz have all been trying to insert minority viewpoints in Iran-related articles, only to be constantly reverted and attacked by a contingent of Persian editors insisting that they are disruptive, anti-Iranian, racist, etc. It would be a gross misuse of Wikipedia administrative process to use it to suppress minority voices. I'm not defending ALL the actions of the above users -- some of them have narrow viewpoints, sometimes they have little in the way of social scientific background, and they've gotten angry and used ill-tempered language themselves. Often, they seem to want to take over articles for their own viewpoints, rather than allowing all POVs to be displayed.

However, if Wikipedia is to be NPOV, it must allow Iranian ethnic minorities their say. If their arguments are specious, then that will be apparent when the arguments are displayed. However, the anti-minority editors want ALL mention of dissent squashed, which is wrong. I've gotten involved in the Khuzestan-related articles and I've been given the same treatment -- verbal abuse, removal of disputed tags, refusal to allow alterate viewpoints.

A whole swathe of articles is at issue, and it is going to some effort by non-Iranian, non-minority editors to enforce some even-handedness. Zora 00:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

On behalf of all editors who support this action, I would like to say, unfortunately we strongly disagree Zora. With all due respect, you cannot use Wikipedia as a political platform, nor hide under the notion of a minority group, or as neutral users, when for the [past year and a half], you and the other three users try to insert some enormously controversial political issues, or some hypothesis that is not universally backed by [one] major source like a major encyclopedia, and then refuse to compromise on the issue that the over-whelming consensus agrees with. You four users simultaneously revert articles, put numerous banners on articles, and engage in edit wars, while flooding the discussion pages of these articles with an excessive amount of texts, sucking-in all the other editors, forcing them to defend their writings which are always backed with multiple references. After proving proof to you, you gives responses such as, “Dictionaries and encyclopedias are not reliable guides to contemporary academic standards. They are inevitably behind the times”. The mediators from whom we asked for help, all attest to that. Moreover, that is unfair to label all the editors who edit in articles about Persia or others, anti-Arabs, “Iranian-Editors”, or even “Iranian-Terrorists”, implying some sort of biasness. I have provided proof of such talk in the above sections already. You and the other three users start a dispute, forcing all the other editors that had agreed to a consensus to come and justify their edits, and provide you with their references, again and again and again. Also, just to be clear, not all of these editors are Iranian themselves, and some of us have keen interest and knowledge about ancient civilizations such as Rome, Persia, Greece, and Egypt. While your edits may be fine if you are writing a newspaper article, nevertheless, this is an encyclopedia, and that is not appropriate. You don’t have to be pro or anti anything; rather, only on the side of the facts. Zora, it seems that over 98 percent of [your] edits have to do with some sort of pro-Islamic, pro-Arab articles. And, unfortunately your edits, such as for example, trying to change the heritage of the beloved worldly renowned Sufi poet Rumi from Persian to simply Muslim, even though many of these editors have provided you and others with numerous references such as encyclopedias that unanimously state that poet is Persian, reveals some sort of a hidden agenda. Or, better yet, to this date, without discussion, many, many times you erased and keep repetitively erasing an [entire section] in the Islamic conquest of Persia article, without even discussing it with [anyone], without providing one single source, and even though as a so called “neutral” user, you know well that in order to be fair, we must present both sides of an argument in an article. You then go to that article again, and change some simple words that afterwards make the article sound differently; it makes it into an almost one sided, pro-Islamic propaganda. Such subtle changes of a few words that have an impact on the language of an article are called “weasel words” in Wikipedia. You inserted some info that the post-Islamic Persia had been basically “Arabized”, and in so many words you stated, there no longer be a so called Persian culture. Of course these are just two examples, however, there are records in the history pages of your talk page, as well as the talk pages of the three users in question that show you have repeatedly tried to ask each other for help, and called good intentioned editors (some with academic degrees in history), “Iranian Nationalists”, “terrorists”, etc. As the history of you talk page also shows Zora, you have tried to always back-up the other three users, and even asked these other three users in question to help-you-out on articles you feel that are not going your way. Although there is nothing wrong with users agreeing on a subject, however, in this case clearly the other users like Heja Helweda, and Aucaman did not have any knowledge of the content of some the articles you asked help for, and they simply rushed to your aid. That actually [is] pushing one’s POV, and trying to go against a consensus that was already established by some editors. You, along with these three editors have inserted sections like for example `Genetics Test on Kurds`, that is not backed by [one] major source such as an encyclopedia, into articles about Iranians. Not only articles like that should not be put into an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, at least not yet, but also you had made 3/4 of that entire Iranian people article, flooded with some info about the Kurds, and that Genetics Test. When others tried to request that valid references be provided, and/or to kindly move that section to an article about the `Kurds` perhaps, you and these three users teamed-up again, and an edit war ensued on almost [all] articles that have anything to do with Persia. Despite requests for a third opinion, which we did on many of these articles, despite setting-up a Mediation Cabal, and despite providing numerous references to you Zora, user Aucaman, user Heja Hlwelda, and user Diyako, all of you four users refused to compromise, and instead started almost vandalizing other articles. Please know that, we sincerely believe that these three users and you Zora [are] using Wikipedia to push some political agendas, and are at best abusing your editing privileges. And, while we do not want to have the banning of any user on our conscious, we can now honestly say the only remedy for these misuses of editing privileges here is to block or ban these three users, and again, you as well Zora. Please be aware that users who try so hard to push a POV, cannot work with others, and perhaps may be blinded by their passions, and this regrettably is not an ideal environment to write an encyclopedia in. Users like you just end-up driving away editors who have something legitimate to contribute to these articles.Zmmz 07:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Zmmz's comments. I'd also like to point out that this is not about minorities or minorities' right or anything like that, as I am myself half-Kurdish and half-Azeri and none of the users filing this complaint are homogeneous by ethnicity, that's just Zora's assumption or accusation. We are not at all concerned about minority viewpoints in Iran-related articles, on the contrary we encourage such viewpoints because many of us are Iranian minorities or not even Iranian. Disrupting the Iran-related articles on wikipedia and using wikipedia as a platform to pursue a political agenda, is what we are against. If you take a look at those three individuals' "contributions", you can see a clear pattern of disrupting Wikipedia articles that are about Iran or Iranians. --ManiF 08:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, note that Zora often interjects her own personal opinions into articles, without even bothering to add a source. She has also deleted almost the entire content of the Khuzestan article in the past without discussion     Note also that for many edits she does not cite sources, yet is prone to attack other editors for their not citing sources (even when sources have been cited).  I could go on and on but there are too many diffs to provide here and they go back a long time. She continues to make personal attacks, while ignoring the behavior of others who are not Persian or Iranian - when an editor who see views as a minority makes unsourced claims or injects personal opinion into an article, she quickly looks the other way and remains silent. I myself am only half-Persian and yet she has attacked me constantly as a "Persian nationalist." The only way to deal with such a user to is to take the case to ArbCom. SouthernComfort 08:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This incident is being discussed at: Talk:Persian_people --Fast e n talk 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

We just wanted to provide some diffs, in this case reverts and personal attacks by user Heja Helweda, since after apparently a stub in regards to `Turkish-Kurdistan` I believe was asked by some other users to be voted on for deletion, this user who seems to be a Kurdish political activist, now along with articles about Persia, he or she is actively involved in the political articles about the country of Turkey. It seems this is being done as some sort of weird vendetta, and this may demonstrate that such activism is not appropriate in Wikipedia. The diffs are, [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politics_of_Turkey&diff=42589346&oldid=42376753].Zmmz 18:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support for banning these vandals. They regularly damage articles pertaining to Iran and spread misinformation. --Houshyar 18:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Support as per Zereshk and SouthernComfort's reasons. -- Amir85 20:17, Tuesday 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. An RFC would be more approporate, I'll be collecting necesary evidence against the people in question at User:Cool Cat/RfC March 2006. Anyone is welcome to assist. -- Cool CatTalk 00:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't claim to be an angel or perfect person, but I have been subjected to numerous personal attacks recently. I generally tend not to discuss these issues, but just for better clarification, I would like to provide links to personal attacks directed at me. Sometimes I have controversial views, not supported by many people, but I have never resorted to personal attacks. I look at wikipedia as a place to acquire knowledge and practice tolerance.
 * Personal attacks by User:Zereshk:
 * Saying that you hate Iranians is not a personal attack. It's a fact, plain and simple.
 * The level of anti-Iranian hatred you exhibit actually hurts many Kurds. and I'm not an ethnically driven bigot like you and your twisted friend
 * Every Iranian editor is insulted by your Iranophobia. Leave us alone
 * You have quite a hatred against Persia and Iran.
 * A bigot by definition is someone who is "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". Im sorry, but that is exactly the behaviour you exhibit.
 * Edit summary of Iranian Kurdistan: I know you hate Persians. Take your hatred elsewhere.
 * Please kindly retract your hatred of Iranians.
 * they fucking hate Iran and Iranians from the bottom of their hearts? Mercenaries with an agenda to spread hatred against Iran on Wikipedia.
 * Every Iranian editor is insulted by your Iranophobia. Leave us alone.Heja Helweda 03:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not about being an angel Heja Helweda, it is about the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, working on consensus, and it is not a political platform. Your contributions diffs, some of which are listed above, show an enormous amount of political activism by you.  It just has no place in here.Zmmz 17:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

''“For more examples of Anti-Semitism, follow the repeated attemps of some Wikipedians to re-introduce the racist use of the word "Aryan" into Wikipedia. Follow the discussions here and see examples on the following articles: Persian people, Tajik people, Iranian peoples, Aryan, and Indo-Iranians. Your help would be appreciated.”'' AucamanTalk 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)]
 * Personal Attacks by User:Aucaman

''“Regarding your edit here. Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism”''.

''“Yes, I don't like racist, inaccurate POV. Is there anything wrong with that?”'' AucamanTalk 09:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

''“What are you guys even talking about? Instead of discussing obvious stuff why don't come down to the Persian people article where a lot of users are trying to add racist, sometimes anti-Semitic propaganda into the article.”'' AucamanTalk 07:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

''“Just because you read something in your 2nd grade history book in some other language it doesn't mean you can put it in Wikipedia. See WP:NOR”''. AucamanTalk 04:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

''“You don't know what you're talking about. Persian Jews are more than just Persian-speaking.”''

''“You don't know what you're talking about Kash. Aryan now means "Indo-European"? Is that really what you want to say? Or do you mean "Indo-Iranian"? Do you even know the difference?”'' AucamanTalk 14:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

''“The problem is that the use of the word meaning "Indo-Iranian" is no longer in technical use and I've given enough evidence to support this. Your sources are outdated and not significant. You're just wasting my time”'' AucamanTalk 14:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

''“And what are my views? You don't even listen.”'' AucamanTalk 06:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"You asked for it. I tried to remove the false and racialist information, but you.....Some people here don't seem to understand the difference between a linguistic group and a racial group...."

''“There........(such as myself) who don't blindly follow nationalistic race origin theories. I've been accused of being "anti-Iranian" here, but I think those self-appointed representatives of Iranians who are misrepresenting them are as anti-Iranian as one can be. Bad news for the real anti-Iranians: most Iranians today don't subscribe to racist theories imposed on them by outsiders. (Most of these theories about the origins the origins of Iranians were brought to Iran by Iranian scholars studying in Germany or German scholars visiting Iran.”'' AucamanTalk 04:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

''“#Oppose. Seems a little too interested in the politics of Wikipedia. We need more contributors, not power-grabbers. Relatively few Talk namespace edits”''. AucamanTalk 05:01, 27 February 2006

''“You're trying to point to valid interpretations of the word "Aryan" to somehow justify its racist interpretation. Not going to work”''. AucamanTalk 04:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

''“There are a lot of stuff taught in the books in Iran that are not true. (They say that Iran is a true democracy and that United States is a dictatorship ran by Zionists.... You wanna go ahead and add these information into the respective articles?). A lot of stuff were written during the Pahlavi regime to create a sense of nationalism to counterbalance the Mullah's religious beliefs. Some of them still remain today. It doesn't mean they're true”''.AucamanTalk 04:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

''“Hi. A number of users have tried to re-introduce the (racist interpretation of the) term "Aryan" into Iran-related articles such as Demographics of Iran, Persian people, and Iranian peoples.”''. Zmmz 06:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

''“Merhaba, There is a dispute ongoing in the article Iranian peoples. Some Pan-Iranist users are changing the defintion of Iranian peoples (an unknown and not widely used term) from its linguistic meaning to linguistic, cultural and racial issues. According to their wrong defintion many people are labelled as Iranian, including parts of Turkish population. If you have time and are interested in the issue I ask you to join the discussion. Thank you very much.”'' Talk Zmmz 06:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Personal Attacks by User:Diyako

“In fact I am discussing with a racist Qashqai turk pasdar terrorist pro ahmadinejad who even do not recognize UN emblem and think it is PDK's..” Diyako Talk + 03:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC) Zmmz 06:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sasanjan 16:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC): I support! As an Iranian, I hate Racism or any kind misuse in Wikipedia, such moves must face strongest possible answers. Inactive their users untill real apologises from them.

I am also an Iranian offended by User:Diyako, recently he has begun calling Iranian users 'Farsi', I am not sure what he is referring to, their ethnicity or language? If Iranian users are contributing in English, then I am guessing he is referring to their ethnicity. Calling users by ethnicity may sound racist to some, e.g. You don't call someone 'black', 'white' or 'african' or 'semitic' do you? These Kurds here do not like being referred to as Iranian, so we have no choice but to call them Kurd. --134.83.1.225 15:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic
is, per ArbCom decision, banned from the Template: and Wikipedia: namespaces. Today he decided to revert four of my edits on four different templates in violation of his ban (three of them in the span of 2 minutes), the other about 30 minutes ago–


 * 04:08, March 7, 2006
 * 04:08, March 7, 2006
 * 04:09, March 7, 2006
 * 06:54, March 7, 2006

He's been blocked three times in the past week or so for these same violations, and he appears to have no intent at stopping. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have blocked him for one hour. It's a technical violation at most. Stifle 15:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but it's disruptive in my view because I can't reliably work if he's off reverting everything I do. (Which seems to be the case so far). Worse, he's often reverting to templates that destroy the page for disabled readers. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see it that way, to be honest. In particular, I'm not sure on how this destroys the page for disabled readers. Stifle 13:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You ignored the part where he just blindly reverts everything I touched. That's not disruptive? But to answer your question, take a look at User:Locke Cole/Don't use hiddenStructure where I explain the problem (and provide images to demonstrate it). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic
is again violating his ArbCom ban from the Wikipedia and Template namespace, as well as his 1RR limitation. Diffs:

Namespace ban

 * 04:18, March 9, 2006
 * 04:18, March 9, 2006
 * 04:28, March 9, 2006

1RR

 * 04:40, March 9, 2006 — reverting back to 00:09, March 9, 2006 effectively (diff).

—Locke Cole • t • c 05:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

For the namespace ban: Members of the arbitration committee have stated that they don't intend him to be blocked for making any edit, only if he disrupts.

For the 1RR: he's allowed one revert, where's the second? Stifle 13:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be here Ehheh 15:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No violation. The second was not a revert, look at it carefully. Stifle 10:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I allege he's being disruptive. He's generally mass reverting every edit I make to the Template: namespace. I see Ehheh has already covered my mistake with the 1RR. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already warned him, I don't think the problem has continued. Stifle 10:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Userbox
I know, I know, I said I wouldn't have anything to do with userboxes in my RFA, but this case seemed so unambiguous that greater harm would be done by not acting, even if it did fly in the face of my previous contents. Accordingly, I have deleted and protected from recreation Template:User Nazi. I sincerely hope there is no disagreement on this issue. --Cyde Weys 05:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * None from me. It did nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia.--MONGO 05:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Seconded (thirded?). NSL E (T+C) at 05:57 UTC (2006-03-09)

And don't mind me, I'll just be newbing it up for awhile on ANI. --Cyde Weys 06:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There's nothing I hate more than a nazi, but I would see this as a contribution towards NPOV. Nazi contributors would feel less comfortable and we'll see more of their view, which though I don't mind on a personal level, it does have an effect in making many articles potentially less POV.  It's also blatant censorship.  Hell, I wouldn't mind knowing the person I'm dealing with is a nazi either, if I'm having a debate on a talk page.


 * KV 06:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not on censorship again, the issue when I deleted (but not protected) the userbox is that the template was created by a user, then he put it on TFD to get rid of it himself, which pretty much looked like POINT was being performed. So, that is why I performed the second deletion, Zoe did the first. While I welcome Cyde to the admin team, I just think that for the first few days, he should try not to use his admin powers on userboxes, since that is one of the major sticking points in his RFA. However, welcome to the team and as always, delegate when needed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 06:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You say "blatant censorship" like it's something we should be actively trying to avoid! To Hell with worries about "censorship" or no.  We have no policies or norms to discourage censorship (and some, like the treatment of ArbCom-banned users) that actively encourage it.  Admins need not constantly look over their shoulder for fear of some do-gooder crying out with the c-word.  The typical response to "censorship!" is, and should be, "yes, and?".  Wikipedia is not the real world.


 * That said, newbie admins should not be deleting userboxen, any more than newbie editors should be opposing their deletion. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No policies or norms to discourage censorship? WP:NOT.Geni 12:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, whoops. Well played!  You know what I meant, anyway ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You could have asked somebody else to do it, and you wouldn't have had to prefix this with "I know I said I wouldn't, but ..." ... aa:talk 07:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What did the box say? If it had said "This user is a Nazi" (i.e. someone claiming it about themselves), what's wrong with that? It IS after all a political affiliation.(let me state for the record that I'm jewish and have lost relatives in the holocaust). How is it any different than userboxi saying "This user is a Republican" or "This user is an Anarchist"? (This defense is hinging upon that box actually saying "this user is a nazi" or something similar, obviously if it had said something else, it'd be another story). &rArr;   SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  12:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Republicans didn't kill 1 million babies simply for existing. It brings up bad images. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with this deletion, the box is about as offensive as the pedophile and KKK boxes. Nazism is something which a vast majority of the population consider an outright evil ideology, something which goes beyond the disagreements one has with parties which one merely opposes. In comparison, the "This user is a communist" box is not as offensive, at least not to me, while I certainly don't endorse that ideology either (I'm a social liberal), being a member of communist parties is considered entirely legitimate in most European countries. In my view, being a Nazi means that one endorses racism, intolerance and genocide. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is acceptable invocation of CSD:T1. (Which is a minority - most invocations of T1 are very much not acceptable imo, but I'll leave that to the arbcom...) Stifle 13:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

do we think anyone was actually going to use this userbox? seems like just trolling to me. Cyde did the right thing, even if the main issue in his RfA was userboxes.--Alhutch 13:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, the main issue among the opposers was userboxes. I think I might speak for most of the supporters when I say that I supported Cyde because I considered him to be an experienced, knowledgeable and intelligent editor. (And I am unanimous in that.)--Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is more trying it on with the userbox trolling. 100% correct decision here - David Gerard 18:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a couple of notes:
 * The actual text at the time of deletion was "This user was a member of the National Socialist German Workers Party, and thus is probably really old. Respect your elders!" and it wasn't linked anywhere.
 * Although I can't seem to find the actual statement, there seems to have been some disavowal of all things box-like by Cyde that was crucial to his promotion and I'm deeply uncomfortable with that being tossed aside.
 * It had actually been to TfD and oddly enough survived.
 * These facts make me say that actually, no this wasn't a proper action and no don't do it again. We're meant to be bold in editing, but the best policy with regards to administrative actions is to tread lightly.  It would have been far far better simply to send this to TfD again.
 * brenneman {T}  {L}  23:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As for the TFD, it was not for the "respect your elders" version cyde deleted, but the "this user is a nazi" that I deleted. I saw many comments, pointing to a WP:POINT nomination and 3 speedy delete votes and one keep. I guess it was closed wrong, thats all. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 05:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Antifinnugor
bad faith rfc, posted by, apparently a sock of formerly banned  (as ). Please delete the rfc and permaban the sock. dab (&#5839;) 08:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do. I'd do it, except that I've also been involved with Antifinnugor before. I helped bring the old (but wild) RFC on him, that led to his being banned, and was (therefore) more recently honored with input from him on the Requests for comment/Bishonen brought by User:Hollow Wilerding. But I guess he hates dab even more than me. Somebody please kill this noisome absurdity with a stick. Bishonen | ノート 09:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC).
 * I've deleted it, but perhaps the permanent ban would better be done by more experienced admin. --BorgQueen 13:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, whoever deals with Adam88/Bgully might also want to consider this choice little personal attack on me: . Lukas (T. 09:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

and User:Bishonen, who is just a clique member, obvouosly full of hatred, that shows clearly in his personal attacks against others. Also Adam78 and Nyenyec act in that clique as vandalizers and personal attackers.
 * These are comments from the Dbachmann clique, Lukas Pietsch, who write racist hate comments:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_Groups#RfC


 * I think, it is not correct, that User:Dbachmann vandalizes pages, he does not like, and ignores the will of the other editors. Please reconstruct that page, since it need open debate. I do not think, an open project as the Wikipedia can tolerate hate actions and open vandalization, as he practices it.

Inadvertant defamation
I've been instructed to mention here that I may have inadventantly defamed Eamonn Holmes on the discussion page under his name. I did not realize that the allegations were unproven. Please remove my libellous change from the talk history. Thank you. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.144.35.120 (talk &bull; contribs). 11:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed the comment from the page history. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Robert Blair
User:Robert Blair, an anti-circumcision POV pusher, was banned by the arbitration committee from editing circumcision or sex-related articles. He always edited from 207.69.137.*, 207.69.138.*, or 207.69.139.*. Recently, he has been trying to edit Medical analysis of circumcision (see here). Could people please keep an eye out? Thanks. Jakew 12:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Randazzo56
After making a series of borderline trolling comments, made this comment last night  "Keep a cool head my ass, Keep Jesus out of it, Your queers can take the name your own god in vain" for which I have blocked him for 24 hours. I've spoken with this user before about refraining from attacking language (for this comment ), so he knows it's verboten. Review is welcome. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 14:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Only 24 hours? Remarkable restraint. android  79  14:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:68.109.154.125
I removed this users external link on the Photoblog article because they only had 6 photos on there and thought it NN. They sent me this email: From:  	 "y control"   	   	  	  Date:  Friday, March 10, 2006 4:12 AM To: 	xxx Attachments: 	(none) 	 	HTML | Plain Text | Header | Raw Content hey, thanks for being an ass and deleting my link off http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoblog

and added the link back to the page. JohnRussell 18:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

User:KDRGibby
I have banned User:KDRGibby from editing Participatory economics for the period of one year, because of a 3RR violation. —Ruud 23:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask why a simple 3RR violation merits that, but then I looked at his userpage and wow. Ashibaka tock 23:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's part of his ArbCom probation. David | Talk 00:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the fair use images from his user page. Chick Bowen 01:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * He doesn't appear to learn from his blocks. He has begun making reverts on fair trade and classical liberalism again. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 15:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

For good reason, you people are not consistant editors and you all put in and defend, pov original research and I ask for citations and proof and you can't provide it.

I'm reverting liberalism because of constant deletion of cited relevant material.

And trying to correct fair trade to reflect proper criticism instead of a supposed criticism section that does nothing but promote and support fair trade (While actual criticism is noticably absent!)

I want admins for admins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Gibby 16:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Roadcruft sockpuppetry
= . Best edit summary of the last hour: "JohnnyBGood 01:06 March 07 2006 (hist) (diff) California State Route 15 (rv to last version by Gateman1997 per consensus. Consensus trumps so called "common sense" on wikipedia.)" That's the initial datum from which I work out how much good faith to assume. Both are blocked indefinitely until I get an email saying which one he wants to be the "main" account, and the other stays locked. I'm sure this will brighten SPUI's evening - David Gerard 02:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I actually happen to agree with these two people... does this make me a sockpuppet too? And "I'm sure this will brighten SPUI's evening" puts a limit to the amount of good faith I can assume. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sure David has enough evidence to prove that both accounts are used by the same person, right? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you make this determination through CheckUser, David? android  79  03:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Also see heading at User talk:SPUI "A birthday present for you?" --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:SOCK. Both of these users have over 150 edits, and both have made substantial highway contribs. Did anyone check that first? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how many edits each account has if CheckUser says they're the same person. android  79  04:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Except there's no checkuser reported yet. Also why are both accounts blocked? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, it seems that David's post above is the report, though he was a bit vague about it. android  79  04:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing the crime these chaps committed is 3RR, yes? --Golbez 04:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * SPUI and JohnnyBGood, but not Gateman1997. All Gateman1997 did was have a controversial opinion. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the notice says Gateman1997 was blocked for sockpuppetry -- which your comment ten minutes previously implicitly recognizes -- your omission of that little fact puts a limit to the amount of good faith I can assume. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ommission of a) the already stated (above) and b) the false. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

So wait... there is no debate, no discussion, etc. regarding this? This is totally unjust here. Read User talk:SPUI and User talk:Gateman1997. Also if this was a sock then why weren't the proper notifications and/or templates used? Also emails and messages to David Gerard have gone unanswered. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * David Gerard has no valid email. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * His e-mail address appears on his user page. Raven4x4x 11:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Doesn't look like definite sockpuppetry to me, just two misguided contributors. Is there checkuser evidence? and seem to roughly match (though not as much as RickK and Zoe - that's interesting to look at), so it's definitely possible, but I'd expect many users to have roughly the same "editing profile" like that. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 13:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone who wishes to remain anonymous has shown me some evidence:
 * JohnnyBGood 01:35 February 10 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination) (?Battle of Hogwarts)
 * JohnnyBGood 01:48 February 10 2006 (hist) (diff) Chase Field
 * JohnnyBGood 02:41 February 10 2006 (hist) (diff) Wintel (?Alternatives to Wintel - Mactel is only used by a small subset of anti intel mac nerds.)
 * Gateman1997 03:13 February 10 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination) (?Battle of Hogwarts)
 * Gateman1997 08:50 February 22 2006 (hist) (diff) Interstate 93 (Probably the second most important junction on I-93 is its junction with 95.)
 * JohnnyBGood 19:18 February 22 2006 (hist) (diff) Interstate 93
 * Still not conclusive, but worth a checkuser. This could have been avoided if David Gerard actually said he ran a checkuser or gave other evidence. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Also hey um theres' a thing called Special:Contributions? Maybe one took a look at the other's contribs. I'll admit to having done that before. It's interesting to see how many people have the same interests too. I've run into a few Mac-using roadgeek tech-loving Christian Wikipedians on this site. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Zoe and RickK are not sockpuppets of eachother. Compare and. Please try to be a bit careful when accusing people of being sockpuppets. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please try to be a bit careful when accusing people of accusing people of being sockpuppets. I in no way said they are sockpuppets, just that their editing patterns make it look that way. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please be careful when accusing people of accusing people of accusing... ah what the heck. I've lost the count. Please be careful about making people lose count. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? I use AOL, I don't see how anybody is going to be able to show any sort of sockpuppetry even if it were true, which it isn't. Somebody else (an anon who created an account just to make the accusation) made the same comment on my Talk page the other day, I have no idea why they are claiming this. I don't understand why someone would assume that I'm RickK, but I can say categorically that I am not. Is RickK even still editing? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The suspicion was roused by the lockstep edit-pattern matches (compare their contribution histories, and particularly compare their votes), then a checkuser, then putting all their contribs with timestamp into a spreadsheet and seeing what the pattern was. The user has attempted to be clever to evade detection by checkuser - David Gerard 19:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So what your saying is that checkuser came up blank, right? I cannot help but recall the regretable episode of sockpuppetry accusations regarding User:TheChief. -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  22:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hell, I was blocked a while ago for suspected sockpuppetry:
 * 15:32, 11 July 2005 David Gerard unblocked SPUI (contribs) (I was wrong - my sincere apologies to SPUI)
 * 13:53, 11 July 2005 David Gerard blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (sockpuppeteering with "Wikipedia Vandalism Warning Bot" and all the "Fonzie" users. Well done, most amusing.)
 * It would be nice for the evidence to be public.--SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 22:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Also check out User talk:David Gerard- he never mentions a checkuser. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Gateman1997 has sent me an email. Part of it is as follows:

The only argument I would state is that, "I'm not a sockpuppet of JohnnyBGood. I never have been. I've interacted with him on a few of the CA highway articles resisting SPUI's changes, but that's it. And I would also state that the fact that the accuser stonewalling any attempt at contact is VERY suspect. Especially when he admits he has no evidence but his own misguided suspicions after the checkuser failed. I just want to get back to contributing to the project positively as I always have."

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the correlation between edits equating to sockpuppetry here. Let's see the spreadsheet analysis and how the conclusion has been deduced or jumped to. --Censorwolf 14:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay just realized something... if JohnnyBGood is a sock of Gateman1997 then why the heck did Gateman1997 report JohnnyBGood at WP:AN/3RR for 3RR? Also, why does JohnnyBGood keep getting 3RR violations if he can just use the Gateman1997 account to evade 3RR? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking
As it seems that no administrators are interested in taking action regarding this matter and doing the right thing, I am forced to take action myself. The blocking administrator, David Gerard, has not provided much evidence to the accusation that the users Gateman1997 and JohnnyBGood are sockpuppets. A CheckUser regarding this matter has given negative results, as implied above by David Gerard and deducted by another user whose comment is above as well. It has been difficult for the blocked users to contact him since his "Email this user" link is not enabled (another user had to notify me of the fact that his email is listed on his user page). When the blocked users contacted him via email, they did not receive a prompt response; in fact, they had to wait hours for a response. There is evidence at WP:3RR to the fact that they are not sockpuppets. Also, these contributors were not properly notified of their block with the correct templates. However, the blocking admin subsequently made what can be deemed as "celebratory comments" to user SPUI User talk:SPUI. Another one of these comments may be found at the top of this section as well.

Now, nearly forty-eight hours after these users were blocked, there has been no sufficient evidence presented to support these blocks. These users are blocked from contributing to Wikipedia and giving input to critical decisions involving nearly all of the hundreds of articles regarding the entire road system of the United States. Therefore, if noone objects to this proposed action by myself by bringing concrete technical evidence to my attention or the attention of those who read this page, I will be unblocking Gateman1997 and JohnnyBGood within sixteen to eighteen hours of this post. I believe that this proposed amount of time is sufficient for the blocking administrator and/or others to gather any evidence that may exist in regards to the supposed sockpuppetry of Gateman1997 and JohnnyBGood. Failure to rectify this unjustice will reflect poorly on Wikipedia and its administrators and will ostracize two extremely important, if not essential, highway contributors from Wikipedia.

Regards,

Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 

Posted at 00:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Unblocked Gateman1997 per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  20:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Unblocked JohnnyBGood per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  21:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide,, and Ownership of articles
User:Fadix currently dominates the article. I have tried to reason with him but so far he hasnt allowed me to edit the article. He does not allow anyone edit the article that he does not agree with.
 * User:Fadix has 316 edits in article namespace (214 on Armenian Genocide)
 * I have left this article alone for weeks only to be threatened by fadix recently.
 * A sockpuppet check was done by User:Fred Bauder and the conclusion is that it is extremely unlikely that Karabekir is Cool Cat.
 * I have tollerated Fadix long enough. I do not enjoy being threatened out of the blue. He has a less than admirable incivil attitude towards not just me but practicaly everyone. An example is avalible on Talk:Armenian Genocide, User Talk:Fadix, etc.
 * -- Cool CatTalk 01:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I will like to warn administrators that might view this page to wait few days since Coolcat is aware that I am preparing to open an arbitration cases against him, I am accumulating evidences that this time he has gone way to far by using a sock. Just few days I require. Fad (ix) 01:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Both of you need to step back on this. We don't own articles at wikipedia, nor do we consruct accusations of fellow editors. Fadix, when Cool Cat says that he does not possess an sock, I think you'd better listen. Try and see if actually constructing conversation in the essense of good faith will yeild results. If he says no, try to work with him.


 * An word for you too, Cool Cat. Stay calm (as you have been) and try to reason with Fadix. He seems to be somewhat concerned, and I ask you approach him with friendlier consulting. Both parties are failing to assume good faith, and Fadix's poor attempt at resolution is great cause for concern. Please just work together. This is not an valid reason for an rfar case.-ZeroTalk 09:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Zero, it is him, even Tony admitted that this user seems to act like Coolcat, I would never accuse someone if there is no enought evidences, Coolcat is lying, and an example is when he tries explaining how come other users use his codes, when Nafriz his other alias has used those codes before anyone in Turkish Wikipedia(an alias he is also denying), Coolcat when he registered in Febuary 2005 brought them with him. Coolcat is denying all of this but just wait and see the evidences I will be presenting and leave you judge by yourself if those are just vague claims. No one can trust Coolcat and it has been already shown how chronically he lies. Let see what he does when I start translating some of Nafriz contributions which clearly document that Nafriz is him. Beside, from someone who did not know Turkish at first, and then basic level 1 he now jumped to level two. Check and see recently how many new users have been registering defending Coolcat and Karabekir. Also, that this log-in was registered soon after the subject of Karabekir(the man) was brought by other logins (Enverpasha and Talaatpasha) is another evidences on how Coolcat this time has gone really far, he can accumulate all the evidences he wants about me, he is doing this to threaten me knowing how much he has to hide, I am not afraid, I have nothing to hide, I respect too much Wikipedia to do what this individual has done. Fad (ix) 18:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have tried to reason with him for a year. I have not even edited his Armenian Genocide for ages.
 * He has been extremely uncivil to not just me but to anyone editing Armenian Genocide or participating in talk. User:Shelby28 has been declared a sockpuppet of mine for correcting User:Karabekir's grammer mistakes.
 * A vauge example of his uncivility is avalible on this diff
 * Also his behaviour here is problematic, he has an arbitration ruling he just technicaly breached by responding to my comment here just 7 minutes after my posting. Fadix is not active here and must have been stalking me to know about my posting.
 * -- Cool CatTalk 12:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is funny that you are saying this, you of all people should be the last to bring this up. You have suspected Thoth, Streotek, Davenbelle, Raffi(if my memory doesn't fail me), John(recently) and others I might skipt to be me. Also, I said possibly for Shielby28 and not a direct accusation, but given that you after dragging me into the mud I expect you to blow it out of proportion. Fad (ix) 21:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Armenian Genocide diff * Karl Meier * (-19975) back to concensus version before Karabakir (aka Cool Cat's) edits. Please see talk and discuss any major edits to this article first
 * A 3rd partiy (a person not a part of the debate) removing 20K while acusing me of sockpuppetary is problematic behaviour.
 * Karl Meier has a history of stalking me as per an arbitration hearing. Now he is stalking everyone he thinks is my sockpuppet and treates them with the same incivility. Just some misguded claim appears to be enough to convince him.
 * I know no one believes this kind of behaviour is approporate and I feel someting needs to be done about it.
 * -- Cool CatTalk 16:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * On a compromise, would be appropriate for you two to leave the other chap be for awhile and focus on other articles? This may involve becoming neutral in this situation and hopefully assuming good faith. As you're probably aware I have a very, very high opinion of my fellow editors here at wikipedia, and I think it constructive to pool your diverse editting skills on articles around the wiki. I'm trying to remedy this and I hope that we could drop the potential rfar and attempt some more dispute resolution. -ZeroTalk 15:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Repeated threats from User:Colignatus
User:Colignatus has been making personal attacks and threats against me for reverting his POV, original research contributions in areas where he is personally involved, such as his proposed Borda fixed point voting method. I have asked him twice to stop making threats and warned him that he can be blocked indefinitely for doing so. Tonight, he has made another threat, so he should be blocked.

The threats are that he's going to find an academic superior of mine -- a professor or a dean -- and alert them to my "misconduct" on Wikipedia. Of course, I'm not particularly worried by this threat, but it's still a threat.

I've tried to de-escalate the conflict, by the way; but every time I concede something, he claims it as a victory and uses it as more ammunition for personal attacks. Oh well.

I'm an admin, but it would be inappropriate for me to be the one who blocks him. I'd like someone to block him after looking at his conduct on Talk:Borda fixed point.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  04:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you point to a diff in particular where he's attacking you? --InShaneee 05:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing anything specific so far, but this also disturbs me a bit. He is trying to write to professors that attend schools that also Wikipedians attend, so I think it is a toss-up to wether or not to issue a block. However, I am highly concerned by these edits. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 05:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a recent one with personal attacks and threats all rolled into one: . This is after I warned him that personal attacks and threats would get him blocked, and that was after he had already made such threats twice. This situation is covered by Template:Threatban, by the way.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  05:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have issued a strongly-worded warning to him. I don't really see any threats, and I'm not willing to block on this basis, although another admin may be. If it happens again, post here or let me know. Stifle 09:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am willing to block on these grounds. It's totally unacceptable for our contributors to be threatened and harassed in this manner. If he continues after your warning, it's time for a good long block.---Sean Black (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Defiance of Arbcom on Rajput
I am utterly certain that User:10 000 thundering typhoons and User:Stephanian are both sock-puppets of User:Shivraj Singh, who has been banned by this Arbcom decision from further activity on the Rajput page. I am suffering ad hominen attacks, baseless allegations and attempts at intimidation on the Talk:Rajput page. I request perma-banning of both. Regards, ImpuMozhi 15:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * a sockcheck was "inconclusive" since many new accounts appear to be from their ISP. But I share ImpuMozhi's impression that these users are almost certainly socks, since they conveniently and seamlessly continue the banned user's "campaign". Don't assume good faith to the point of absurdity. dab (&#5839;) 15:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

IP conststant vandalism...
Please check 66.30.63.147 Nothing but Vandalism KsprayDad 18:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If vandalism still doesn't stop after warning, report at WP:AIV. Note that we can't block IPs indefinitely, unless it is an open proxy. Thanks! :) - Mailer Diablo 20:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Anderson12 indefinitely blocked.
I blocked Anderson12 indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Basil Rathbone, and therefore of Lightbringer. I refer to CheckUser evidence, as well as this image, which was uploaded by Basil Rathbone earlier. I appreciate discussion on this block. Ral315 (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

D-Day makes a POINT
Check out this]. D-Day seems to be violating WP:POINT. We've had previous "humorous" nominations of userboxes that blew up into flames. His actions can be interpreted as not so subtle attacks on people trying to seriously resolve the issue for the good of Wikipedia. Instead of respect that, he's just making fun. TfD shouldn't be played around with (except on April 1). --Cyde Weys 20:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism (again) from IP: 216.174.135.162
Vandlism continues from 216.174.135.162. Most recently on Repetitive strain injury which I have now reverted three times in the last hour. The IP talk page shows a long history of vandalism and therefore I put this IP forward for your consideration. User_talk:216.174.135.162. I appreciate your time. Oliver Keenan 20:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Issue template, then list on WP:AIV if vandalism still does not stop. It's a school IP, so I guess some kids are being naughty today! :P - Mailer Diablo 20:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Infinity0
Infinity is being extremely disruptive and destructive to the anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article. He is edit warring (take a look at the history of edits). He requests sources for information, then when they're presented he deletes the information (see the talk page there). He goes against consensus. When the others agree to separate a section into headers, he deletes them, etc. Someone needs to put a stop to his edit warring. His recent request for adminship failed because of this kind of stuff. [Infinity0Requests_for_adminship/Infinity0 But, he's still at it on that article. What can be done? [[User:RJII|RJII]] 20:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody else agreed to separate the sections; I even helped to separate out the sections, and now the article does indeed have sections. I have not edit warred on that article today; we made edits to separate sections at a time. You provided one source out of the many edits you made, and that was the one I kept. Even so, that sourced edit of yours was POV and I had to NPOV it. My RfA failed mainly because of two recent 3RRs, both against you. I am not going to make the same mistake again. -- infinity 0 21:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't mislead people. You've been egaging in MASSIVE edit warring. Do you want me to go in and pick out all your 3RR violations? RJII 21:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've done that for you. Here is my block log. Starting from the bottom:


 * Editing in China, used a proxy
 * Ultramarine reported me for 3RR even though I explained all my reversions and they were reversions of different text.
 * Steve block caught us reverting each other's edits on Anarchism
 * You reported me for giving up trying to reach consensus at Anarcho-capitalism

One edit war, with you. -- infinity 0 21:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's why I'm reporting you. You're edit-warring, misreprenting sources to maintain POV, deleting sourced information, etc. You already got me banned from the article trying to fix the things you were screwing up. If I'm banned you certainly should be banned. Any administrator can see your antics by viewing the history pages: Why I'm banned and you're not is a mystery. RJII 01:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Jacrosse
user:Jacrosse has repeatedly removed tags without discussion, and has been told to stop repeatedly by a variety of editors. Following this editthat once again removed tags from Neoconservatism without even an edit summary, I blocked his account for 24 hours. -Will Beback 21:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Theodore7
In his first edit in a long while, made what appeared to me a set of clear and vicious personal attacks on User:PL. A recent ArbCom ruling against Theodore7 included a standard personal attack parole, and I blocked him for a week under that. Which has led to him describing (on his talk page) my campaign of harassment and one-sidedness, etc. In the spirit of fair play, I welcome any and all to review my actions and unblock if they feel any inclination to. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a good block- That edit is a very clear (not to mention egregious), violation of his personal attack parole.--Sean Black (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As soon as someone starts educating another user about the difference in their liability for either slander or libel, I start reaching for my "put user on first train out of here" button. But a return ticket for a week's time is fair enough. Note that Theodore7 has now used up the "last chance saloon" part of his remedy, and that admins are empowered to block him indefinitely for any further violations, without needing to refer to the ArbCom. He has also, in that cited diff, failed to provide an edit summary and used up the first of his 5 such edit summaries on the road to a year-long block for that alone. -Splash talk 22:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Theodore7 (conservatively) for one week for making legal threats. Please note that, as I point out here, he clearly does know the "no legal threats" policy—he quotes from it (!). He's very ready for an indefinite block, but for now, I have merely added together the three blocks issued today, by Vsmith, Bunchofgrapes, and myself, for one week each, for quite separate violations, and thus blocked Theodore7 for three weeks. Bishonen | ノート 23:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC).
 * Sorry, I made a mistake, Vsmith's block was from last month. OK, Theo is blocked for two weeks. Bishonen | ノート 23:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

Repeat (and how!) vandalism at Julie Andrews
Someone at a third IP now is trying to get this link on Julie Andrews. This page pruports to have information about a "secret son" but, like so many other Internet message boards, its sources are dubious if not nonexistent, and much of its content could be considered by many people to be offensive. Can this link be added to the WikiBlacklist? Thanks Radio  Kirk   talk to me  23:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Ditto for this unsourced blog along the same lines? Someone else now is trying to add this one... Radio Kirk   talk to me  23:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a spoonful of sprotect makes the medicine go down... &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 04:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL thank you :) If I may, though, Wikiblacklisting the URLs might be more permanent? ;) Radio  Kirk   talk to me  04:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Theodore7 again
I have blocked Theodore7 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log]) indefinitely for legal threats and protected his user talk page until the issue is resolved. I ask for other admins to review my actions and, if necessary, reverse them. The relevant discussion is on his UT page. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Security issue?
Squidward has posted this URL: to website, of which he spams the URL about the 'pedia (in edit summaries, hence not deletable]. Anything do be done about about that? Herostratus 01:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Continued Vandalism
Hi, I'm just writing to report vandalism that seems to occur quite a bit on featured articles. It seems the vandal seems to have fun changing his username every time he vandalizes the article. This usually happens for about 12 posts, then he stops. I'm not sure if the IP Address has been blocked yet or not, but it's something to consider. To see a history of his edits, just look at today's featured article.

Once again I am not sure if he/she has been blocked. If they have been, I am sorry to report it! Thanks again!

Cheesehead Fan 01:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's nothing new, to be honest. And since almost every FA is hit hard, it's almost impossible to trace who is who. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Aucaman and User:Heja helweda and User:Diyako
The above users are vandalising and propogating false information on all Iran/Persian related articles. They are posting false information. Nothing they have edited includes fact, it has all been lies and propoganda. They are just racist against Iranian people and Wikipedia must not allow them to post their opinions here as fact! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariush4444 (talk • contribs)
 * Can you please provide links to diffs, or at the very least the specific articles, in question? Stifle 02:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

User:TKH Mebo
This user has a problematic User page to begin with, and has only been here since March 7, spending most of his/her time making edits eerily similar to those of Bobblewik. I almost blocked him, but thought I'd bring it here first for discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a wiki, right? Why not just edit is userpage? Stifle 03:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Editing of other people's User pages is generally frowned upon. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the general principle of user page integrity, but this is clearly just for shock value (it was a whole lotta boobs, if anyone cares). I've removed the images for now, and warned the user not to POINT. --bainer (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure User:Thebainer's edits are among the permissible exceptions to User:Zoe's "generally frowned upon" :)
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Duce Bohogren
Why is this person still editing when he was indefinitely blocked on March 9?

20:11, March 10, 2006 Zoe deleted "Talk:Schmeedisum" (recreation of deleted nonsense) 17:01, March 9, 2006 Obli deleted "Talk:Schmeedisum" (talk page of deleted article) Page history<br? 19:50, March 10, 2006. . Duce Bohogren 17:00, March 9, 2006. . Calton (db-reason|Talk page of deleted and recreation-protected article) 16:54, March 9, 2006. . Duce Bohogren 16:36, March 9, 2006. . Duce Bohogren

User:Zoe|(talk) 03:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The block; The edit. That is really weird... Is there a developer in the house?  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 03:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't view your second link, but his contributions list shows that he last edited on the 9th. --BWD(talk) 03:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * His last edit was five minutes ago. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 03:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I see him editing talk page edits, do it looks like a person can edit any User and article talkpage edits even while banned --Jaranda wat's sup 03:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the Talk page that he edited, see the links I provided above. Blocked users should only be able to edit their own Talk pages. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I just created a quick account that was even more quickly blocked (good heads up, User:Freakofnurture!). While I was banned, I could not edit anything anywhere (just as its supposed to be).  This user's ability must be some kind of weird glitch.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 04:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You should be able to edit your own talk page. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 04:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As User:Jeffrey_O._Gustafson_Ban_Test_to_see_something I didn't try my own because thats the only one I could have... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 04:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The Ungovernable Force
This guy has been harrassing me. He vandalized my user page with a "fuck you." RJII 05:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The vandalism was a month ago and has been dealt with already. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not true. This is the first time I've reported it. He should be penalized. I want justice done. (By the way, I think BorgHunter and Ungovernable Force are apparently buddies) You shouldn't be protecting him from punishment. RJII 05:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, this is the first time I have encountered this user. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've seen his/her name around, but I have no memory of every interacting with BorgHunter before today. The Ungovernable Force 07:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Why are you being protective? What does it matter to you if he's banned for a day or so? You just banned more for two weeks from an article when I did absolutely nothing wrong, based on a mere bogus complaint from an edit-warring POV-pusher. It's obvious you have a bias against me. You should step out of the way and let an uninvolved administrator handle this. RJII 05:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please prove to me that there's any justice at all on Wikipedia. It's proved to me over and over against that there's not. It's all about who you know. The system is corrupt. RJII 05:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to say I am actually high up in the echelons of the wikiadmins? A quick look at my userpage and manifesto show I am pretty out of step with many of the people in power here. The Ungovernable Force 07:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's your uninvolved admin. WTF? This happened over a month ago. Get over it. android  79  06:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It slipped my mind. I'm reporting it today. RJII 06:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's too bad. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. No one's going to block someone for a month-old personal attack. android  79  06:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why should the time factor be relevant? Either he vandalized my page with "fuck you" or he didn't. Because it was done a month ago, it means it's ok? I disagree. I'm not aware of any policy that says time passing is an excuse for this kind of thing. RJII 06:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're currently in the middle of a disagreement with this editor (which of you, if either, is in the right, I have no idea) and so you're pulling up a month-old affront and trying to get him punished for it. See laches. If it didn't piss you off enough a month ago to say something about it, and you continued to engage him in dialogue thereafter, well, basically, that's too bad. Besides, the worst that would have happened would someone would post on his talk page "Don't do that", since he doesn't have a history of unpleasant behaviour. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, two people did tell me not to do that at the time, including a friend of mine and I have not made any other such edits since and have no plans of continuing. Also, I have actually avoided conflict with this user for the most part since then, but I noticed this [ edit today and brought it to borghunters attention since he/she had blocked RJII from editing the anarchism page recently (And I assumed this was the edit war refered to in the message). I suggested RJII be further blocked due to his/her willingness to continue engaging in the edit war that got him/her blocked in the first place. RJII claimed their girlfriend made the edit, so I am dropping this issue. I am just trying to show why it is RJII is now so intent to block me for something I did a month ago and have since shown regret for. Also, see the talkpages of myself, RJII and BorgHunter for more info. I would also like to mention that RJII has a long history of personal attacks and accussing others of harrasment him/herself (he/she accused me of harrasment months ago for trying to get him/her to apologize for and stop making impolite comments towards other editors and myself on the anarchism talkpage). My inappropriate edit was my one time lashing out in frustration at this user, and I have since committed to never do such things (and have stayed true to this, even though I really wanted to break it during the userbox debates). That is all I have to say about this for now. [[User:The Ungovernable Force|The Ungovernable Force]] 07:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I did rebuke User:The Ungovernable Force for that edit, and while it was lamentable, it didn't seem to be part of a pattern of vandalism. *Both* User:The Ungovernable Force and User:RJII have deliberately antagonized one another since then -- I have no clue whether TUF's subsequent apology to RJII was sincere, and frankly don't care to know, as long as they stop trying to get one another banned. It's frustrating to have my only local known Wikipedian pop up on WP:ANI =P
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ford Mondeo
I have messed up the formatting slightly when adding important data on trim levels - can an admin fix it for me? --Sunfazer (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Important data on trim levels? Oxymoron alert! Just zis Guy you know? 15:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

68.110.9.62 is making plenty of personal attacks via edit summaries, but while I've warned by npa3 (and will block if I see another one of these), I am finding it difficult to sort through his/her edits to figure out what is vandalism/POV and what is not (particularly since I'm not accustomed to being up this early :-)). Can folks look through them and make calls on what should be reverted and what should not?  Thanks.  --Nlu (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * After more personal attacks and a clear vandalism of England, I've blocked him/her for a week and decided that this user's edits are sufficiently unreliable that I reverted all of his/her top edits. Some of it might be correct information, but this user deliberately inserts false information as well, and with no confidence that this user edits in good faith, I decided that the safest routine is to remove them.  Obviously, this doesn't eliminate any false info that the user inserted as non-top edits. :-(  --Nlu (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This IP's editing pattern strongly resembles that of User:Kenneth Alan and his reincarnations User:Kenneth Alansson, User:Borderer, User:Frontiersman, and probably several more. Kenneth Alan was banned by the arbcom for a year on October 2, 2004. Before the expiry of that block he apparently edited under a different name, and his block was extended to March 2006. Later, after more sockpuppetry, it was extended to May 2006.  If others concur that 68.110.9.62 is indeed Kenneth Alan then his block should be extended to March 12th 2007, that fact noted on user:Kenneth Alan, and his further contributions be reverted on sight. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No personal info infringement
Over at my talk page, 70.25.152.39 has tried to guess my name (here). Without either confirming or denying that this is correct, I want to point out that this was an infringement of the 'No Personal Information' rule. I would like for this to be deleted permanently, if possible. Bucketsofg 16:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The relevant revisions were deleted per your request. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 18:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Reporting User:Mcorcoran for Incivility
I responded to a recent change on the Ivy League article at 21:59, 11 March 2006 by User:Mcorcoran where he claimed that he would take legal action "As an administrator of the University (of Pennsylvania)"against a fellow user.. I responded to his claim by pointing out that he should not threaten legal action as an administrator of UPenn especially when he is not one as evidenced by his User Bio. my response (User:Mcorcoran's bio). He has responded to me with a threatening message on my user talk

<<Please do not get upset. You are insecure about the fact that you attend a low ranking state school (ok half state school). Other than the open green spaces, your campus looks ugly. Cornell's buildings are absolutely awful. Also, hate to break the news but Cornell was not even around during the Colonial period. Just because you could not get into one of the Ancient Four (Penn, Harvard, Yale and Princeton) does not mean you can make rude comments. Grow up. Just to let you know Cornell is named after one of my ancestors. Oh, knowbody uses "UPENN" (only low class non WASPs); its "PENN.">>

I find his comments to be threatening and incivil--Xtreambar 00:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

User SPUI has been blocked by a bot (page moves)
User:SPUI has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 22:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've unblocked, as SPUI clearly isn't a pagemove vandalbot. From a cursory check of the moves it appears something of a movewar may be underway; while unfortunate that's not a reason to uphold the automatic block. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In this case it wasn't the nature of the moves, but the rate. In the past, SPUI has moved up to 70 pages per minute, and he claims this is all done manually using Firefox tabs.


 * I guess the question is, should SPUI be permanently whitelisted when it comes to page moves? He does seem to have a bit of a checkered history at Wikipedia.  Any opinions? -- Curps 22:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure that blocking is in order, but the moves I am aware of are being done without a final consensus, in fact the voting has gone the other direction. SPUI seems to be on a mission and while applaud his editing contributions, I would hope that he would refrain from going ahead with changes that are currently being debated and voted on. --Censorwolf 19:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think all users with more than X edits (say 1000) should be whitelisted. The only circumstances under which I'd think it shouldn't whitelist a user we genuinely believe not to be a vandal is when that's a specific sanction (a "thou shalt not mass-move") handed down by the Arbcom. I'd guess that if they knew that technical capacity existed, then that un-whitelisting is something they'd reasonably be expected to apply in a few cases. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering SPUI is involved in a movewar, and is doing Wik-esque things (listing pages to "fix" after 3RR resets, which is NOT the objective of 3RR), I would campaign against whitelisting him for anything, and I say this as a fan of SPUI. --Golbez 22:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Shoulda left him blocked... he's obviously moving way too fast to be humanly possible. It also doesn't look to me that Naming conventions/Numbered highways has been adopted. In particular, the Voting shows only a minority favoring (Statename) for disambiguation. This seems like a one-side campaign being waged by bot. -- Netoholic @ 22:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've explained this to Curps - I go through tabs, paste the reason, go back through the tabs, double click California, hit end, paste " (California)", and hit enter. Please assume good faith. As for the naming conventions, I am simply moving them to fit the current disambiguation conventions, as the name of each route is "State Route X", not "California State Route X". This has nothing to do with the proposed naming conventions, as it is already part of the naming conventions. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 22:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is SPUI's explanation back in January of how he does the page moves: . According to him, each one involves a Ctrl-Tab/double-click/Ctrl-V/Enter, all done manually and all four operations taking less than a second in total, and then repeated about seventy times or so non-stop, without any pauses.


 * The bot doesn't assume good faith or bad faith... it just reacts to a number of triggers. I'm a bit reluctant to permanently whitelist because sometimes even known prolific users go bad or get hijacked (eg, User:Jobe6 recently).  It would help if SPUI slowed down a bit. -- Curps 23:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I occasionally achieve the same speeds blocking open/zombie proxies. Given enough tabs and a total fearlessness of Carpal tunnel syndrome, it's humanely possible. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 23:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I achieve vast numbers of edits very quickly when I welcome new users. See this slice of my contribs, for example. Firefox tabs are great for quickly repeating actions. --bainer (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * iirc, Firefox was also the weapon of choice used by Willy on Wheels, which is the primary reason why Curps' bot is detecting for page move vandalism in the first place. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

These moves were done against consensus. See WP:RPP, the above WP:AN/I, WP:NC/NH, User talk:SPUI, Talk:California State Route 17, and many other pages. I am virtually forced to revert them. Other users (who have been frivously accused of socks) would have reverted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you know why they're currently at "California State Route X"? I mass-moved them about a year ago from "California State Highway X". There were some complaints, but, except for SR 17, it settled down. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 04:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus against that then. There is now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  21:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads has been opened. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

User:RJII violating probation
RJII is violating his probation on Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. He is consistently adding wrong and POV information which he knows is POV, I can only assume, in order to provoke me to violate 3RR. I believe this violates WP:NPOV and WP:POINT.

For example:

THIS IS HIS TACTIC TO GET AROUND WIKIPEDIA POLICY ON SOURCING. RJII 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC) What have I done wrong here? NOTHING. RJII 20:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Adds point which he fully knows is POV
 * False. This is sourceable. In fact, after you complained about it, I inserted it with a source. RJII 20:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Now that he's got me banned from there, he goes in and deletes the SOURCED information!:
 * That is one person's POV. You worded it as if it was a true fact. I merely moved it to another place and NPOVd it. It is source number three in the referneces. -- infinity 0 20:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Changes "many" to "communist" which he knows is false
 * False. I was making the statement more precise. There are no individualist anarchists that says anarcho-capitalism is not a form of individualist anarchism. RJII 20:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I provided a source on the talk page stating that individualist anarchists avoid calling themselves anarcho-capitalists and that such anarchist oppose capitalism. -- infinity 0 20:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Changes "do" to "do not", which he knows is false
 * I strongly disagree that most anarchists think anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Note that his claim wasn't sourced either --there was a request for a source at the end of the sentence. RJII 20:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Changes "many" to "communist" which he knows is false
 * He has no source to claim anyone but communist anarchists make this claim. Again, I was making the sentence more precise. There ARE sources for communist anarchists saying that, but not for individualist anarchists. RJII 20:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Attributes a claim to "communists" which he knows is false
 * Again, communists anarchists complain about "heirarchy." Individualist anarchists don't. I was making the statement more precise. RJII 20:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Screw this, RJII. This page is large enough already. If you have any replies put them on my talk page. -- infinity 0 20:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

-- infinity 0 19:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I'm going to ban him from this article (but not its talk page, of course) for two weeks and let things settle down. If another admin wants to undo me, go right ahead. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Do I have permission to revert to and make the necessary edits (ie. remove occurences of "communism") to remove the POV? -- infinity 0 20:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You needn't permission to edit; be bold. Use your common sense, though, and try not to provoke anyone. (Keep in mind that if you've been reverting a couple of his edits as you go, you might violate the 3RR with another revert. I haven't checked. I can't, however, absolve you from that rule if you're in danger of breaking it.) —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I forgot to mention. Remember to assume good faith; do you really have evidence that he's trying to goad you into a 3RR vio? —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I got ahead of myself. A similar thing has happened before, and I just put two and two together. -- infinity 0 20:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an attack by a very disruptive individual. infinity has been engaging in massive edit warring, putting in false information with no or non-credible source, etc. Why don't you take a look at the edit history of what he's doing on that article? He's destroying it. The charges he's making against me are false. You just accept what he says on face value? This is his tactic. If he can't get away with POV pushing he complains against me, no research is done to see if his claims are true, and I'm banned. It's B.S. RJII 20:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * RJII, stop being so damned paranoid. I'm not out to get you. -____________________________________- -- infinity 0 20:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're an extremely disruptive editor. It's obvious that you are out to get me. You want me banned so that you can tailor the article to your POV and delete my SOURCED edits. YOU SHOULD BE BANNED. You're taking advantage of the fact that I am on "probation" knowing that all you have to do is complain and nobody checks up on your complaints. RJII 20:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * RJII, have you forgotten WP:CIVIL? Calling for someone to be banned, regardless of merit, is a clear violation of civility. If you continue doing that, don't be surprised if YOU are the one who earns a ban. --TML1988 20:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

infinity's word should be be trusted at face value. Look at his attempt at adminiship. The Wikipedia community rejected it realizing how disruptive he is: Infinity0Requests_for_adminship/Infinity0 He's been engaging in edit warring, personal attacks, multiple 3RR violations, deleting sourced info. This complain of his is just another element of his disruption to try to get his way. RJII 20:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The word "disruptive" does not appear on that page. Please stop editorialising. Also, see above bolded comment. -- infinity 0 20:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * RJII, I know of that RfA. I even voted on it. I voted oppose. However, it's completely irrelevant here. I looked at the situation, and judged it the best I could. Infinity's past transgressions and rejected RfA are immaterial. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Then what IS material? What have I done wrong? There is nothing wrong with putting in sourced information. And there is nothing wrong with making statements more precise so they don't mislead the reader. RJII 20:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The sources, precision, and NPOV of your edits were disputed. You knew they were disputed; Infinity disputed them on your talk page. You forged ahead anyway. That's what was disruptive, and what merited the ban. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. The edits that were THERE were disputed. I changed them BECAUSE they were disputed. infinity writes very very POV and his edits need fixing. I was doing the article a service. And, I'm banned for it. It's ludicrous. RJII 21:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just get a new account and start afresh. I'm tired of this "probation" being used against me by infinity. All a POV pusher had to do is COMPLAIN and I'm banned. That's how they can get around censoring the sourced information I put in an article. The system is horrible. (And, by the way, the probation is a result of the same type of thing; to try to get me banned they scoured over a years worth of edits for anything that could be construed as a "personal attack") RJII 21:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SOCK. --AaronS 23:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I REQUEST TO BE UNBANNED. FIXING POV PROBLEMS IN AN ARTICLE IS NOT A CRIME. RJII 21:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be a first, usually you just wait for woohookitty to ban you before you make a new sockpuppet, or go on a 6 month break, or just go pagemove happy, whatever, guess your "close down wikipedia by pulling the funding" plan didn't pan out, can't wait to meet your next sock!--205.188.116.65 21:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How's that "class action lawsuite" coming? Not so well I guess--205.188.116.65 21:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about? RJII 01:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Locke Cole
has repeatedly removed dispute tags that I placed on. He's not at all participated in the content dispute, nor helped in any way to solve it. I feel like, because of past experiences, his actions are only in opposition to me, personally. Removal of dispute tags in this way is considered Vandalism, which I've warned him about several times. I'd prefer if some neutral admin would look into this and see if a block is warranted (he's removed them five times in the last day), or at least a stern warning followed by a block if he persists further. When there is a content dispute, it is imperitive that we clearly note that, both as a warning to readers and to editors who want to paricipate in the solution. -- Netoholic @ 21:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is also considered vandalism to misuse dispute tags, which I believe you are doing. Further, administrators should be aware that Netoholic has violated his ArbCom imposed 1RR. But regarding dispute tags, quoting Vandalism (under Improper use of dispute tags)–
 * Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus.
 * He's the only one disputing the article right now, and I find it hard to believe one person can be allowed to place tags like this indefinitely until they get their way. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh come now... I think admins can read WP:VAND themselves, but here is the part Locke left out:
 * Dispute tags are important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period.
 * As for his 1RR claim, the Arbitrators have clarified to not apply that literally. Besides, reverting vandalism does not count. -- Netoholic @ 21:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The arbitrators have made clear your bans and limitations should apply if you're being disruptive. This is just such a case. You've been shown sources that satisfy the claim that "Leet" is a language. You've been offered a reasonable compromise (which, frankly, you did not deserve given your attitude). And what do people get for their trouble? You slap farc on it, getting it demoted from featured article, then when that doesn't get you your way, you decide to slap dispute tags on it. You're being a dick. Knock it off. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

'''Both of you - knock it off until someone can review this. Going at each other's throats now, and here at the ANI, does nothing.''' NSL E (T+C) at 00:37 UTC (2006-03-11)

Without wanting to fall into the trap of becoming NSLE's reviewer (ick! No!  Messy!), could I just make one quick appeal? Please, please, please &mdash; let's see no more of this "you know, technically, if you read the wording in exactly the right way, this could be considered a form of vandalism?"! Either Netoholic's wrong, or Locke Cole's wrong. Pulling in project pages that clearly have nothing to do with the case weakens your position and increases the average amount of wikilawyering 'round here, and that's always a Bad Thing. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to hear opinions as to whether this dispute (which includes Neto and Locke, as well as myself to some degree) should be rolled into the current RfAr (which Neto requested), or instead should be its own RfAr. I suspect that many of the same issues will be brought up (behavior of parties involved), but at the core is a fundamentally different issue. Mediation has been attempted, and has failed. I ask not because I want to stir opinion (or yes, Neto, to poison the well), but because I am not familiar enough with the process. It seems to me, also, that it would be a real pain in the ass for all of us involved to be handling two such processes at once. Opinions? ... aa:talk 03:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I-95 exit list
(since apparently editing disputes are okay on this page now) There already exist more accurate exit lists on several articles such as Interstate 95 in New Jersey, and thus the page was edited to link to those to avoid a content fork. Several editors are reverting this for no apparent reason. I listed it on RFC, and got one response agreeing with me. It keeps being reverted to the fork. Something needs to be done. OMG ARBCOM SANCTIONS. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 00:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well but you're ignoring the fact that on your talk page and the article talk page we've requested for you to not do what you've been doing. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring the fact that Fork asks you not to do what you're been doing. Please read that page until you understand why forks are bad. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 00:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * SPUI is actually right here - article forks are generally a violation of or attempt to get around NPOV, which is a policy that no group of editors can form "consensus" amongst themselves to ignore - David Gerard 09:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Different stance"? This is an exit list- how can it be POV? The exits are what they are. It's like accusing someone of POV on Wikisource. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads has been opened. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII Banned from AN & AN/I
Per Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug as clarified on RfAr Requests for arbitration, I have banned from posting to the Administrators Noticeboard or Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents, or the talk pages thereof, for a period of three months. Also, given Dmcdevit's suggestion, I am opening a dialogue on a full ban under the general probation clause, for a period of not less than one month. Essjay Talk •  Contact 09:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might tell us exactly what actions have led to this? I know I could hunt for them, but this would be the appropriate place (or at least a pointer.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that I gave two links when requesting clarification, specifically and , which I thought were good, recent examples of disruption.--Sean Black (talk)  20:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the current version of this page is filled with RJII harassing others and otherwise disrupting the page. Do a "find" search on RJII; nearly every instance of his signature appearing on this page is prefaced by some sort of disruption. Essjay  Talk •  Contact 12:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Consider me admin #2. I've tried to be reasonable to him, but he has disrupted nearly every article he has touched, including ANI. I support two weeks as a general cool down period. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Consider me admin #3, and I'm willing to support a ban of anywhere from two weeks to three months. Ral315 (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Given this, I am blocking RJII for two weeks as a two week general ban per his probation. Essjay  Talk •  Contact 12:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletions of referenced material from Holodomor by
Irpen continues deleting referenced material from the Holodomor article. Recent deletions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holodomor&diff=43255029&oldid=43250760

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holodomor&diff=42929948&oldid=42920697

There are facts, numbers, list of countries that acknowledged Holodomor. The article has been protected several times to avoid revert wars. There is a very long discussion on the talk page, which led to nothing. Referenced facts continue to be deleted by that user. I am out of ideas on how to convince Irpen to stop these deletions.--Andrew Alexander 15:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can see why that discussion went nowhere: it didn't get the result you wanted. Repeatedly re-inserting images with disputed copyright status is hardly constructive, is it? Neither is blanket reverting, losing other material in the process.  Irpen seems to me to be acting entirely reasonably, and I note that Irpen's edit history is both broader in scope and apparently contains far fewer edit wars.  Perhaps the problem is closer to home? I note that you just reverted again.  Stop it.  Engage in discussion on the Talk page and stop revert warring.  Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 16:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't insert any disputed copyright images in this article. All the images I inserted there are over 70 years old. I replied to your comment on the discussion page. Deleting referenced material isn't an answer, is it? Yes, I did revert these deletions. I will do this again unless you provide some sort of reason. Please go ahead and ban me for this. Here is my answer:


 * Ok, let's go sentence by sentence of what was erased. First you erased a commonly known term from the first paragraph. There is a long debate on this page by the people who refuse to accept it. However, the term passes the definition of a "common term" according to Wikipedia standards (please read WP:NC - "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" Is this not neutral?). Second, you erased the sentence "The Holodomor was caused by the seizure of the 1932 crop by the Soviet authorities." It is referenced and seems neutral. Then you erased a referenced sentence "At the height of the famine, while confiscating crops from the starving peasants, the USSR exported 1.70 million tons of grain in 1932 and 1.84 million tons in 1933 (close to a quarter of a ton per each victim in each year).[22]" Again, I don't see anything not neutral here, please correct. Then you deleted "The Soviet authorities also banned travel out of the famine affected areas under the pretext that people travelling for food spread "anti-kolkhoz agitation"." Is this not neutral? If not, please explain why in detail. Then you erased two paragraphs: "The death toll of the famine is estimated at between five and ten million people[23]. The rationale behind the famine as well as the exact number of casualties is unknown because the pertinent archives of the NKVD (later KGB, and today FSB) remain closed to historians in general." and "Ukrainian émigré historians were among the first to argue that the famine was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people. Today, the governments or parliaments of 26 countries recognized the 1932-1933 famine as an act of genocide. Among them Ukraine, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, United States, and Vatican City. The fourth Saturday of November is the official day of commemoration of the Holodomor victims in Ukraine. Still the Holodomor remains a politically charged topic for many parties, especially in Russia. Some Russian authors continue claiming that the Holodomor was not an act of genocide but a "mere famine".[24]" Both paragraphs are well supported by references. For instance, each country added to the list above was supported by a reference within edit comments. I can't find anything not neutral about this text. Again, my opinion could be subjective, so I need your explanation of why you deleted this material.--Andrew Alexander 02:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Keystrokes
We the editors at Freemasonry are convinced by this user's actions that he is a sock of User:Lightbringer AKA User:Basil Rathbone. He has gamed 3RR on the article, used misdleading edit summaries, and now that the page has been protected, Keystrokes has taken to vandalizing the RFC page we have, as well as personally attacking both myself and JASpencer on the Talk:Freemasonry page, wherein he also makes his biases clear. The one valid point he makes is pursuant to another related page, and it is like that because of his actions (the article was rewritten, and the summary has yet to be updated due to constant vandalism and edit-warring). Would it be possible to speed up the sockcheck, or get some sort of intervention besides the protect? The problem is not the article, but the user. MSJapan 17:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Keystrokes has been blocked for WP:3RR. If when the block expires he continues disrupting WP, place a message here again and we shall take care of it. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 22:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by user 87.65.151.70
Vandalism of articles on Ken Livingstone and Brian Cant
 * Warned. Please report vandalism to WP:VIP (for complex vandalism) or WP:AIV (for simple vandalism like this, assuming the editor has been warned and continues to vandalize) instead of here.  Thanks.  Chick Bowen 23:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking UAE?
I got this mail:


 * I tried to edit something today only to find my IP is blocked.


 * I realise you continually block UAE IP addresses, but previously logged in users were still able to edit.
 * Please could you sort out this situation as soon as possible. I know our ISP in this country is  totally fked up using about two different IP addresses for over a million internet users, but it's kind of annoying that wikipedia members with genuine intent have to suffer for the sake of a few sad trolls and vandals.
 * How about creating a "safe" list of users in the UAE who can still edit no matter what their IP is?

I don't know which IP he means (I've asked and await a reply) (this is my block log).

Anyone care to review? William M. Connolley 23:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If UAE means United Arab Emirates it might well be the block of User:MB. —Ruud 23:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 195.229.106.18 was blocked as an open proxy so that might be causing the problem as well. —Ruud 00:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, a bit more on this:


 * Oddly it now working again, which might mean my IP has changed. It's currently 217.165.6.130.  It's even letting me edit logged out, which hasn't been possible for ages.


 * The problem is that this country runs the entire internet through a proxy, meaning it looks as though we're all on the same computer.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:213.42.2.28 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:195.229.242.54

This is from User:Istara. I notice there is a 195.229.X.X but not quite the same as the proxy you mention William M. Connolley 11:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Carlosvillarreal (Sock Puppet?)
Original research, removing segments of article due to political biases, very selective of adhering to Wikipedia policy, refuses to behave appropriately after admin Will BeBack had to protect the page due to Carlos' constant manipulation of the page, suspected sock puppet due to entirety of user's edits being on one article -- MSTCrow 03:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Correction: I protected National Lawyers Guild due to the activity of several editors who were edit warring without seeking consensus on the talk page. I don't know anything about the sock puppet allegation, there may be socks working on the article. -Will Beback 03:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This sock puppet(?) is now having his edits being reverted by other editors. The consensus is not with this guy, and he's trying to do revert wars or something.
 * MSTCrow 15:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

User:BBIH
This user has been blocked and is constantly creating sockpuppets asking for unblock, which has been repeatedly denied. See User talk:BorgHunter and User talk:ESkog for examples. I'm a bit new to the admin thing - is there anything we can do but keep blocking as they come? (ESkog)(Talk) 04:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The blocked user in question should be emailing you instead to request unblock. Not his "friends", or/and sockpuppets. Just continue blocking the sockpuppets on sight, I guess. - Mailer Diablo 09:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
User:Garglebutt has a personal attack on me on his UserTalk page. He placed it there after disagreeing with me about the content of a number of articles. It contains a false allegation against me that is itself the subject of legal proceedings. I have asked for action to be taken to remove it and no action has been taken. One administrator even asserts that an allegation of this kind is not a personal attack but fails to explain how. I have read the Wikipedia policies on personal attacks and they are very clear. I would like it removed and for Garglebutt to be blocked for doing this. It follows a pattern of his personal attacks calling other editors idiots, criminals and other terms of abuse for which he has already been warned. --2006BC 05:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's hardly a personal attack, although I think somebody should have a word with him about civility. It's a link to a newspaper article which mentions you in the context of an article which you are (in my humble opinion) rather unwisely involved in editing. Don't you think it would be best to step back and let impartial outsiders edit such articles? Does Jimbo Wales substantially edit his own biography? I don't think so. The amount of heat generated over this series of articles on Melbourne student politics is quite bewildering, really. --kingboyk 14:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's student politics for you, I'm afraid. Young + bombarded by politics + free library Internet access + lots of free time = recipe for disaster. And being a 21-year old undergraduate with an interest in politics myself, I should know. :-) --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

repeatedly blanking his talk page, making personal attacks, civility breaches. Werdna648T/C\@ 08:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * How can I make personal attacks and civil breaches when the page is blank? 09:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by marcyu (talk • contribs)


 * {fixed indentation, signature). Firstly, the page is blank because you blanked it. Feel free to check the history. Secondly, thanks for finally deciding to sign your posts on talk pages, however you need to use FOUR tildes, not FIVE. Werdna648T/C\@ 09:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

She has now been banned for three days (1 for making personal attacks, 1 for a 3rr violation and 1 for trying to circumvent the 3rr block) but has returns under a different IP. Hir edits at Madea's Family Reunion look more like vandalism than an editorial dispute to me. Any advice? —Ruud 16:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As an FYI, he/she (I assumed "she" with the name "Marcy," though if I erred, I'm sorry) has refused to even consider to work together on compromise text. It appears to be 'their way or the highway.' I've asked about signing his/her/it's posts and to refrain from using the HTML justification code out of common courtesy, but have been rebuffed each time. Finally there has been a stretch of reverts using multiple IP numbers to avoid 3RR, and evidently to provide the impression of multiple individuals posting. Mhking 21:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Irate v 2
I just gave this user an indefinite block based on User:Irate. Please review. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And just for fun I blocked User:Irate v 3 as well. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"Wyatt Ehrenfels"
Okay, now this ninny is starting to annoy me.

Summary (those who know or remember the background can safely skip the next four paragraphs): "Wyatt Ehrenfels" (aka aka  aka  aka  aka some other sockpuppets whose names I don't recall) is the pseudonym of a self-proclaimed expert on Cyberstalking and his own paranoid variation called "gang-stalking", who some months ago tried to extend his self-promotional campaign to Wikipedia.

(For a taste, see Articles for deletion/Gang stalking, Articles for deletion/Electronic Harassment (anti-personnel sense), and, plus Talk:Dream/Archive1, where "Wyatt" tried to argue for including his own original research and numerous links to the website promoting his own vanity-press-published book.)

"Wyatt" is also an aggressive SEO self-promoter, as a quick stroll through Google for hits for "Wyatt Ehrenfels" will show -- with countless posts on vast numbers of unrelated mailing lists. But Google is a double-edged sword: given Wikipedia's prominence, User:Wyatt Ehrenfels (with its prominent sockpuppet tag) is now the number 5 hit for "Wyatt Ehrenfels" and Talk:Dream/Archive1 (with its collected evidence of "Wyatt"'s bogosity) number 25. He seems to realize this, as he (or someone from his IP) has been occasionally attempting to scrub his name from user pages and Talk:Dream/Archive1.  

So far, so what: myself and other editors have consistently reverted his whitewashing attempts and told him to contact the Wikipedia Foundation if he has a problem with this. Since the name is a pseudonym -- his pseudonym -- I'm failing to see the privacy concern, but that's up to the Wikipedia Foundation poobahs.

And speaking of privacy concerns and real names, we (finally) come to the issue that's the point of this post: "Wyatt" has taken to making edits and edit comments that include what he thinks is my real name and background (along with a couple of others he thinks are me -- apparently I'm a USENET poster calling himself "Imperial Leader", based on the fact that the day "Wyatt" made that post, my user page had a picture of Mao on it, who could be said to be an "Imperial Leader": See his chain of logic for yourself). I'm not threatened, just annoyed on general principle.

So, would some admin mind going through those edits and deleting them from the history? You'll find them at


 * Talk:Dream/Archive1:
 * ,, , ,.


 * User:Wyatt Ehrenfels:
 * ,, , , ,.

Thanks in advance. --Calton | Talk 13:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. I've also vprotected them. &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. --Calton | Talk 23:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations in u*****xes
Sorry for the bad language. I bring the House's attention to Special:Contributions/Asterion. Being the warm, fuzzy, cuddly admin that I am, I don't want to revert war. I have left a comment on Asterion's talk page: would someone mind sorting this out? Cheers, Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Warm, fuzzy, and cuddly? Please, don't confuse yourself with me!--Sean Black <sup style="color:#FC0FC0;">(talk) 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)