Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive99

User:Diligens blocked for 3RR
I blocked Diligens (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log]) for 3RR at, specifically for repeatedly re-inserting the term traditional Catholic, rather than traditionalist Catholic or Traditional Catholic, per ongoing discussions on the Talk page of that article. Diligens has also repeatedly removed warnings from his Talk page. Just zis Guy you know? 19:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone can go there and see that the admin JzG was the one in violation, but apparently because he was himself partisan in the discussion, he used his powers of blocking to make himself feel right. You don't even have to know the issues to see it there. My explanation fell on deaf ears and I got blocked. The article was in status quo when I came there on April 30th. The discussion was still going after 11 days and JzG edited the article ON THE VERY POINT OF DISPUTE, making a edit of what was well-accepted even all the way back to January. JzG, as an admin, does not know the simple rules and is abusing his powers as an admin. It is like a citizen who points a gun at a robber, and the police take away the citizen. Any admin should know that in an RV skirmish, the person who FIRST makes the violation, is the ONLY one who violates the 3RR rule, NOT the citizen who is RVING to correct the violation. I got blocked as that citizen. Incidentally, JzG put in an RFC at the beginning of that discussion. And his summary in the RFC shows that he didn't even understand what the objective of the discussion was about, which may be the reason why he later violated by editing the article out of step with the discussion. (Diligens 12:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC))


 * I count five reverts, violation of 3RR, endorse. A grammar change is not obvious vandalism  Will  ( E @ )  T  12:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wasn't a grammar change. There is no grammar or spelling book that supports it. The very edit was conceptual and the point of contention and no consensus was attained yet. Flaunted by admin. (Diligens 12:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC))


 * Removing Warnings from someone else's User:Talk page is a violation, but not removing it from one's own page. Once a person reads something on his own page, he is free to remove it. The above admin was given a promotion he was not ready for. (Diligens 16:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC))
 * Actually, you aren't allowed to remove vandalism warnings. And you're getting worked up over a single letter?  Will  ( E @ )  T  16:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:VANDALISM includes "Removing warnings for vandalism or other issues from one's talk page may also be considered vandalism." --pgk( talk ) 16:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a warning for vandalism, it was allegedly for 3RR, and the policy says "may", it does not say it always is. More importantly, the admin violated policy of 3RR because the policy says, "an administrator should not block users for 3RR if they themselves have reverted that user's edits on that page". JzG was involved in the discussion, and after 9 days of arguing he made an edit that pertained directly to what had not be decided yet. Not only did he violate what I just quoted from 3RR policy, but he violated the process of discussion by choosing to edit according to his side when the discussion was not complete. (How much a person gets "worked up" has nothing to do with it, either an issue is valid or it is not.) (Diligens 14:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

User:I'M THE MOTHERFUCKING JUGGERNAUT BITCH!!!
This user has been blocked for their username and they are repeatedly attempting to edit, filling up the Blocklist with autoblocks. DOS vandal? Anything we can do about this? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably. Not really.Geni 03:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You could reset/blank their password....hopefully, seeing as how this is the 4th time in the last hour I've hit one of their autoblocks--64.12.116.65 03:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You could suggest on the talk page that, without a comma, this username implies that the user is either the juggernaut bitch (i.e., an unstoppable bitch), or the bitch of The Juggernaut (sounds painful), and that they consider the syntax of the next moniker they choose. Beyond that I got nothin'. JDoorj a m     Talk 03:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Correction to the above: the name indicates is that it belongs to the female dog that is a juggernaut of having sexual intercourse with its own mother (or some other mother). Everyone needs a talent, I suppose.  Geogre 03:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Correction: IT refers to The Juggernaut Bitch (now defunct) it's a nonnotable amateur video that got famous for a few days. -- ( drini's page   &#x260E;  ) 05:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I found myself forced to unblock the Juggernaut, along with a crapload of autoblocks, in order to release yet again the very unfortunate AOL user User:WBardwin, who's had precious little opportunity to edit in the past few days. See User talk:WBardwin. See my recent unblocking activity here!I did the same with another AOL block the other day, and I believe a few other admins have done the same. If anybody has a better solution than undoing those autoblocks by hand, and especially any suggestion for avoiding letting the vandal walk free, please share. Bishonen | talk 12:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC).
 * Except you didn't actually unblock the user (nor In my opinion should you), you unblocked !! not !!!, so it was just the autoblocks which did it, and that really is the only option that I'm aware of. What I don't get is why the AOL users don't enmasse complain to AOL --pgk( talk ) 19:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * They probably dont know any better or like torture... No offense but I hate AOL. -- Cat out 09:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the sort of thing that could be solved by Blocking policy proposal. Vote! --woggly 10:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Seconded! Geogre 16:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC) (a victim of such "collateral" damage as a victim of Netscape ISP)

Could somebody help Johnleemk?
Would somebody here be able to mentor Johnleemk? As the result of an arbitration case, he posted these words on a talk page: "Lou_franklin is banned from editing this article... The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page." 

Since it explicitly said "The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes", I did. As a result he blocked me for 48 hours! He apparently made a mistake posting the wording because he changed it to "the user is prevented" after he blocked me. Obviously since the talk page said I am "not prevented from discussing or proposing changes", it is not appropriate to ban me for doing so!

Other users suggested to him that he "ask for clarification at the relevant ArbCom page" and "I think it is advisable to ask clarification" and "since the template was misleading, the block should probably be lifted", but he flatly refused saying "there is nothing to clarify...  Specific rulings overrule a general template." I asked him to post a link to the Wikipedia policy that states that. He could not provide one, and responded by saying "you should know better than to rely on a general template".

This admin is making up rules as he goes. If an admin posts that it's OK for a user to add to the discussion, it's really not reasonable for the same admin to block the user for doing so. Is there an admin here who would be able to explain that to John? Lou franklin 03:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Something wonky is going on here.  is supposed to be under a seven day block for violating the terms of his personal attack parole.  I don't see any reason why he should be unblocked right now – when Johnleemk blocked Lou, Johnleemk cleared the previous block before reblocking – but Lou has been able to edit this page and User talk:Jimbo Wales].


 * Can anybody figure out why this block isn't sticking? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Can somebody please address the actual issue? Lou franklin 03:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest trying unblocking, then reblocking again. --InShaneee 03:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was unfairly blocked for over 48 hours. Maybe the system has a fairness quotient built in Lou franklin 03:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And maybe you're wikilawyering. The arbcom Requests_for_arbitration/Lou_franklin case pretty clearly says (in the first remedy) that you are banned from the article AND the talk page. That Johnleemk put up the wrong template is regrettable, but the arbcom findings, in my view, overrule minor procedural errors like that. You need to stay out of that article AND its talk page, indefinitely. It would also be helpful if you didn't post long rants about the sad decline of Wikipedia on the talk pages of all and sundry, but we can't have everything. As for the topic, I don't see where Johnleemk needs any help, he's doing fine.  + + Lar: t/c 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * He seems to be thinking that since John told him he could edit that page, it meant he was free to do as he pleased (including calling other editors sexist slurs). I think it was rather big of John to give him a chance in the first place, and he most certainly did the right thing when Lou stepped way out of line again. I've tried unblocking/reblocking Lou, hopefully it'll stick. --InShaneee 03:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This user has shown nothing but bad-faith, and I endorse this block. Ral315 (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Threatened to get me desysopped if I didn't rollback his disruption on ArbCom members' talk pages.  Will  ( E @ )  T  10:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support mentoring, Johnleemk is clearly new and inexperienced with this admin thing that he's supposed to be doing, and clearly needs an experienced mentor to help guide him along this path. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're all newbs to me :) Raul654 16:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And me too. :p (Although I'm definitely a newb to Raul -- when I arrived he was already a juggernaut on Wikipedia.) Johnleemk | Talk 18:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We're all newbies. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not a mentor or anything but I don't mind having a go at talking to him - do you need to be official to do this sort of thing? Soph  i  a  Gilraen   of Dorthonion  15:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of laws
Jurisprudence has a concept called conflict of laws.

I've noticed that this concept and some other legal concepts are not well understood in wikipedia, including by arbcom. But that is to be expected in a young project and one which inevitbably reflects the power of appointing members to arbcom. Nonetheless, in this case, and even if Lou is gaming the system, the rule of law should be respected and applied.

Since I'm a legal positivist in my thinking and training I argue that the law is applied to suit the outcome desired by those making the decision. It would be better though, in this case, to give the benefit of the doubt. The 48 hour block was thus unjustified.

As to the 7 day block. Excessive. Homo is derogatory, yes but not as derogatory as some words. Lou should be unblocked and templates should be improved.

To put the matter beyond doubt, my comments should not be read in any way for support of his views. Mccready 17:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Conflict of Laws occurs when two different nations have different laws, that contradict each other. This is not within a country. Same here, this is within wikipedia, and there it does not apply. Kim van der Linde at venus 17:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, we don't do legalities here. We go (or should go) by common sense and the good of the project.  Friday (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, WP:NOT a micronation. We don't make laws; we make policies and principles and expect editors to use their common sense instead of lawyer their way out of trouble. Also, I find this emphasis on the homo thing strange; to me, it was secondary to the massive bad faith Lou placed in his post to Jimbo's talk. As the arbitration committee insisted that special attention be paid to bad faith, and in light of Lou's recent violation of his article ban (I've already explained on his talk why he can't use the template as an excuse), the 7 day block is justified. (Even if it wasn't and we want to hew to policy, bear in mind that the arbitration committee set the maximum block at 7 days -- if Lou even slightly deviates from what he's supposed to do, any admin can wham him as hard as they like provided the block does not exceed 1 week. I was lenient with Lou the first time, so the second time round...) Johnleemk | Talk 18:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Call it what you will (law, rule, principle, policy, guideline, "spirit not the letter", norm etc), in the last analysis you have a system of power where some are more powerful than others, yet WP is still a normative community and that means "laws". Whether you interpret them as black letter law or as spirit, as a positivist, I say the outcome is identical. And in any normative community unless you have consistency and justice, unless you temper power with good judgement and impartiality you will undermine the community. John, your block edit of a week only mentioned "homophobic epithet", not the display of bad faith which I agree was deserving of a block even allowing for rhetoric. I'm still inclined to think the penalty on the harsh side. "Wham him as hard as they like" might not be the attitude to enourage a reformed editor. And by the way, conflict of laws doesn't only apply to nations, Kim. If I understand the norms here correctly, would it be possible for John to express willingness for another admin, someone less closely involved, to remake the decision? Mccready 19:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See above. There's a lot of support for his actions from a lot of uninvolved admins. --InShaneee 19:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't recall using either "homophobic" or "epithet" at all where Lou was involved. I can't remember the last time I used the word "homophobic" (probably in some off-Wikipedia irrelevant debate about homosexuality), and the last time I used "epithet" was in literature class. My summary for the block only referred to a violation of the personal attack parole, and my message to Lou focused on bad faith with the "homo" comment added as a finishing touch. The basis of the block was never the "homo" comment, and certainly never was "homophobic epithet". Johnleemk | Talk 19:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The legal jargon leaves me cold. Lou violated two of the conditions set by ArbCom, received a week's block (John referred to this as "the full one week", personally I would have thought the maximum was two weeks for two violations) and consensus is behind the blocking admin's interpretation. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

John, it appears you may be in error here. The system records you as using the phrase "homophobic epithet" in the edit summary. Could someone else have had access to your logon? Sam, what I meant to say is whether you apply "law" or "spirit of law" the outcome is identical. As a relatively new user I'd appreciate an answer to my question as to whether WP culture permits John to step back and allow someone else to remake the decision? Mccready 04:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No other admin -- not one -- has disgreed with his decision, and every one of them has the ability to override it. No other other admin -- not one -- has overridden his decision, but have in fact tried to help him implement it better. All the irrelevant pseudo-legal arguments you can concoct don't change this basic fact. --Calton | Talk 04:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh...the title of the section I was editing was "User:Lou franklin and homophobic epithet". I did not use the word "homophobic epithet"; the complainant (Cleduc) did. (My edit summary for this edit will be "Conflict of laws" because that's the title of this section, but I'm certainly not using that phrase at all.) My rationale for the block has been clearly stated, and the "homophobic epithet" did not form the bulk of its basis. Anyhow, WP culture discourages wheel warring unless there's consensus that the admin just went bonkers. There's consensus that I didn't go bonkers, and asking someone else to undo my block and then redo it is just process wonkery. (Incidentally, someone else did block Lou after it turned out my 1-week block didn't take effect, so your request has already been fulfilled in a sense.) Johnleemk | Talk 08:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks John for the explanation of the edit summary. Sorry if there was any unwarranted imputation. I've learnt something. Cheers. Mccready 23:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Review of Easter blocks
At the beginning of last month, an anonymous user posted links to a website which attacks some of the editors on the Christianity article. The website, which I looked at at the time, was certainly an attack site, and was based on the deleted user page of User:John1838, but it did not have real names or photos. On 13 April, John reappeared as User:SimplePilgrim, and posted several more links. At this stage, the website had KHM03's photo, his real name, and a link to his website which gave information about his location, his wife, his family, etc. SimplePilgrim was reverted by SOPHIA, and a new user (with obvious connection to a user who has violated WP:SOCK more than once in the past) began to follow her around and repost the link. He was blocked indefinitely by an admin, and another admin almost simultaneously blocked for a month. SimplePilgrim was also blocked for a month.

KHM03 left Wikipedia as a result. Creepy messages were sent to his talk page, mentioning his wife, children, and dog by name. In addition, a very inappropriate e-mail was sent to his superior.

The background is long and complicated, and I don't want to clog up this noticeboard. So I have written an account here of the events that led to these Easter blocks. The blocks are due to expire very soon, and I would like some other admins to review them with a view to making them indefinite. Thank you. AnnH ♫ 00:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I support AnnH's request that the blocks be made indefinite. Material recently has been added to the off-Wiki page. I'd do the blocks myself, but since I am one of the admins named on the page I'd like someone uninvolved to take a look, and block if appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 02:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm tempted to just indef-block both accounts myself. I would like to know what the admins who blocked for a month think about this?  Jkelly 03:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree that block should be indef. NSL E (T+C) at 08:29 UTC (2006-05-13)


 * I tidied up some of the reposts after the inital AN/I report, initally looked into some of the unblock requests. I'd support any extensions to the blocks. --pgk( talk ) 10:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * SimplePilgrim has now been indef blocked by Freakofnurture, I've just re-applied the indef block to HK30. I generally make a strong policy of assuming good faith, if at all possible, but in this case I believe there is absolutely no need for these sort of editors on Wikipedia. Petros471 11:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I support indef-blocks as well. Jayjg (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem with editor whose English is hard to understand
You are referring to my edit to Akidd dublin (abandoned 5/2006) 14:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, this page is long enough. Please give some indication of who you're talking about, why you have posted a snippet from their talkpage, what you would like us to do, and who abandoned who, or I remove your post. Enough with the Theatre of the Absurd. Bishonen | talk 15:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC).
 * For some background on this user and his current conflict see here. — GT 17:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Over the last few days several editors have pointed out to Akidd dublin that many of his edits are impossible to understand due to english not being his native language. Generally that wouldn't be a problem, slightly unusally phrasing or minor grammar/spelling errors are easily fixed, but Akidd dublin's edit's, while well meaning, are often at the level of being completely impossible to understand. His contributions to Static random access memory, for example, were reversed by two different editors as "unintelligible" and "poorly worded and hard to understand". Many people have pointed the problems that his difficulty with english is causing (See his talk page for some of the many comments) User:Fnarf999 was just one of many, but Akidd dublin responded by changing words in his comments, for which he was warned by User:Yamla. Since then there has been mediation, and prior to this comment on the incident board, Akidd dublin also posted on the villiage pump in a similar manner. Akidd dublin has also selectively archived comments on his talk page, and from reading his replies, I don't think he realises how much difficultly his edits are causing. He also has a tendency to add content which is unrelated, except by very tenious links (e.g. adding a link to a film site (rottentomatos) into Red Hair, because tomato is a nickname for red hair, or to Yahoo groups, because they have red haired avatars there. Nothing which is vandalism, but quite fustrating for those trying to fix these issues as communication with him is proving very difficult, as his talk page shows! It's also not helpful that he won't tell us what his native language is, which could be of use to try and understand what he is saying, because quite frankly, I don't understand what he means most of the time, and it's this quality of english that he insists on adding to wikipedia. (he's also created a new account, User:Yy-bo, which has only made a few edits recently. Regards, MartinRe 17:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, Martin. The only bit I understood was the far-fetched accusation of racism, which I can't say prediposed me in favor of the usefulness of this editor. I'll leave the thread on the page till the bot gets it, then, with a less mysterious and screamy heading, as people may have input on the more general problem. Bishonen | talk 18:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC).
 * I am at the point now where I think this user is a troll. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The thought had crossed my mind also, Zoe, but my gut feeling is that he is not. I may be proven wrong, but until then, I'll assume good faith. That leaves me with a dilema, I would like to keep an eye on his contributions so if he adds something that doesn't make sense I can ask him to clarify and/or fix the grammar myself. However, I want to do that as a good faith measure to try and ensure articles remain understandable, and also help him edit better, and not in a wikistalking way, so I want to get a general opinion on whether actions like these would be accepatable before I go any further. For example, he has just edited Superstition and I have made some grammar fixes, and requested on the talk page to explain what he meant by "Urban legends, which are not scientifically prooved (justification) are put into correlation(s) which do no exist in physical, visible reality.", which I believe is a reasonable enough request. I think I get the vague idea behind the sentence, urban legends and superstition are somewhat related, but I haven't enough to work on to try and fix the grammar. Unfortunately many of his edits are like this, close enough to the subject to believe he's in good faith, but written in such a way that it's difficult, if not impossible to work with.
 * Does my idea seem okay, or are there any other suggestions on the best way to progress on this matter? MartinRe 13:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would worry that watching his contributions on any article he edited could be seen as provocative, no matter how justified it might be in this case. I think I would tend to wait a day or so and see if anyone else has the article on their watch list and fixes it without your intervention.  Wikipedia can bear with 24 hours of bad english in a few articles. Thatcher131 16:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears that the user has abandoned his account and will take up editing under a new user name (as it is entirely permissible); I'm sure someone will alert AN/I should his new account make edits of similar quality and talk page discussions of similar disruption. It's rather difficult to determine if the user is trolling, I think; so many of his talk page contributions are necessarily ironic and altogether funny, and they often seem to be from a native English speaker affecting (jocularly) the writing style of a non-native speaker (as in I do not spell grammatically incorrect sentences within articles.  If anyway think I do, then make it three-line (if possible) [I assume the latter portion to mean that he does not want verbose comments to his talk page, which surely would be consistent with his not being familiar with English]; I do not harass terms, just funny things; and, My new articles are not full of mistakes, neither they spell completely wrong grammar. I have abandoned this account. I found it ridicioulus: there was annoying information (article:red hair). It was removed. I was accused then of spelling wrong sentences. It does not have to be in usage by anyone (i.e. "Please understand it forehand"). It sounds better than: "You have been warned". It is not impossible to understand this writing).  One hopes, though, that if the user was trolling, he'll use his new account for good;  if he wasn't, one hopes that he'll seek to improve his English (at least for the purposes of editing here) or partake of a Wikipedia with the language of which he's more conversant.  Joe 17:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity impersonator
User:Emmaroberts claims to be Emma Roberts, which seems dubious. Not sure what is done in such cases, but it was suggested I bring it up here. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The account should be blocked, as far as I am aware, though I am not 100% accurate. Does anybody else know the correct procedure to conduct? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 18:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems pretty premature. The user doesn't appear to be doing anything nasty as of yet. --InShaneee 18:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a block may may have come too quick. Nothing worse than doing things prematurely. Give it a little time to firm up the suspicions, then slam it hard and fast with a block. -- LV (Dark Mark)  18:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the account for using the name of a living person. If they can verify that they are indeed who they claim to be, then they will be unblocked immediately.--Sean Black (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just for future reference, is that the usual policy? --InShaneee 18:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware. There was a previous incident involving a User:Hilary Duff where the same course of action was taken (it's not in the block log, as I believe this was before the current log was implemented.).--Sean Black (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not quite - we actually gave her an opportunity to verify her identity then blocked her, rather than the other way around. Phil Sandifer 19:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmhm, okay.--Sean Black (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you going to drop a note on their talk page outlining the reason for the block, or do they automatically see the block reason?. Personally I would have thought it better to ask first, explain WP:USERNAME, and request verification. Then if verification wasn't forthcoming, or user started vandalism, sure block, but there is no policy I'm aware of against using a name of a notable person - if you are that person. Do we not assume good faith? What happens if this does turn out to be the real person? Regards, MartinRe 18:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur, and it's not too late to do that in this case. AingGF is better late than never.... JDoorj a m    Talk 19:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * When an account claims to be a living person, not to mention a minor, there are potentially serious issues involved. Frankly, this is a "better safe than sorry" case. If they are who they claim to be, then verification should not be difficult, and the account will be unblocked immediately.--Sean Black (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm... it appears this is probably just some kind of sock. See User_talk:Zanimum. Zanimum brought up Emma Roberts as a joke, then magically, the REAL Emma Roberts created an account, saw two random people using her name, showed up and complained? Very unlikely. I support the block. -- LV (Dark Mark)  19:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that information, I support the block, but think it would be better to always ask first, and block only if evidence like the above occurrs, or vandalism starts. (I did add a fuller note to the page, seems a little moot now) Regards, MartinRe 19:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As do I. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 19:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I acted somewhat hastily, but I suppose if it should be blocked anyway, it's moot. Thanks.--Sean Black <sup style="color:#FC0FC0;">(talk) 19:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there is an overreaction here. Emma Roberts is not a highly specific name, and it could be someone else with the same name (there are at least 3 other people in the world with my given and falily name combination, and my family name is far less common than Roberts). I think this is a first ask, then block situation if this account is used improperly. Just my 0.02 EurocentsKim van der Linde at venus 21:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That would have been fine, but she was claiming to be the Emma Roberts. One with Julia Roberts as an aunt. It wasn't just a coincidence. But yes, that is just this case. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  21:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, there's something I've always been curious about- how would a celebrity Wikipedian go about proving that they actually are who they say they are? Obviously (with the user's permission) we could check the IP to see if it matches to the location the celebrity is known to live near, but other than that I'm at a loss of ideas of how anyone could prove such a thing online. Are there any obvious things they could do to prove their identity? E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good question. It could be confirmed with a post on their official website, or they could just post a picture of them with a sign saying, "Hello, I am famous. On Wikipedia, I go by the name _____ ". Simple as that. ;-) -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  21:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Which reminds me, someone want to block the above poster until he can pony up some proof that he's really he-who-must-not-be-named? :P --InShaneee 21:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Uhhh... erm... I mean... we should just take peoples' words for it. Yeeeah, that's the ticket. ;-) -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  21:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this comment in itself is enough to block LV for wrongful impersonation. If he were really He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, we would currently be attending InShaneee's funeral, not reading stuttering about assuming good faith. ;o) E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 22:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If that the case, this gives us some insight of what happens in the 7th Harry Potter book... :-) --Ton e  21:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Harry Potter and the Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit? :-D FreplySpang (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you're the Dark Lord, Lord Voldemort? Last I checked, there was someone very pale and stealing Christmas claiming to be the true evil person. Oh, wait... never mind. It seems like some kind of lion has taken care of that. Beware all felines, then, Lord Voldemort! :-) Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, you caught me... wanna know who I really am? ;-) -- Mark Neelstin <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  01:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * They could [mailto:info-en@wikimedia.org email us] from an official email account to verify that they are indeed that person. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I discussed how I'd go about proving I am who I say I am, or at least suggesting strongly that I was (the trust problem shifts to my employer, and the volume/body of my web work/identity) here. Not that I'm famous or anything, I have less than 16,000 Google hits... While I like the holding up a sign bit, there are celebrity doubles out there... How do people know Wil Wheaton is the person posting to his blog?  + + Lar: t/c 22:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, the singer Momus declared that, on MySpace, there was an imposter who had done a whole user profile and posted a song that Momus himself had deleted, and now, he says, there are all these people who "know" him that he's never met. The faux Momus was apparently a devoted fan.  That said, there are several persons named John Wayne, Valerie Plame and the like.  The account name per se shouldn't be an impersonation.  Impersonation is more than a name: it's a behavior.  Since, as I hope we settled before, Wikipedia takes no account, gives no credence, to real life identities (doesn't have "expert editors" and the like), a person claiming to be Karl Rove would be just another editor, I hope.  Geogre 22:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

User Userbox has been blocked by a bot (page moves)
User:Userbox 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 00:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to be our good friend willy or a fan. Homestarmy 00:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean userboxes weren't invented by Willy on Wheels? --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

MutterErde
I have blocked for a month for ban evasion. The IP is static, and he admits in this edit that he is, who was indefinitely banned by Jimbo Wales. Chick Bowen 00:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Alkivar phone number vandal again...
The only edits, , and made were to post Alkivar's phone number. Therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia's privacy policy, please remove the following edits from history:

     

Thanks! 02:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As a note the underlying ip has been blocked by a checkuser Benon 02:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't do it. The page is too goddamn big. Snoutwood (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoa. That nearly crashed my computer. But it's done. Sorry for the wait, lads. Snoutwood (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * try the devs in future.Geni 04:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I really don't want to do that again. Another reason to get selective revision deletion tools. Snoutwood (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, more such edits have been made to both pages, so I suggest semi-protection of both pages along with the deletion of such edits [In particular, all edits made by, (this user's edit was not properly removed previously), , , and  only involve posting that number and should be removed]. 06:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Wallie
I have been concerned over this user's edits on New Zealand related articles for the last week or two. Today I posted an accusation of trolling on his talk page, and he vigorously objected to the accusation. The fullest version of his reply is on my talk page.

Not long afterwards, he made the following edit:. Take a look at the source; it contradicts the edit.

Looking at some of his earlier edits, I find these: and In the first, he says New Zealand has always had excellent relations with France, yet the relationship has been strained over both French nuclear testing in the Pacific and the Rainbow Warrior sinking. Why would anyone add such a paragraph if they were ignorant of these events? In the second, he says NZ felt abandoned by Canada, yet clearly it was Britain that NZ was looking to. This one might have been a typo, but I think the pattern of edits adds up. See the current version of Foreign relations of New Zealand for corrections to the statements.

I don't see this as a matter for mediation, as it isn't simply a dispute between me and him. I can't launch a RFC, as there hasn't been another editor trying to sort this out. Is the appropriate next step to go to Arbcom?-gadfium 07:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you saying? Just change the article(s), if you know something I don't. Don't go into all this bureaucracy. As you say, this is not a dispute between you and I. If you disagree with anything I say, you are free to change it. Please put in what you think, in any foreign relations area, or anything else. You can always discuss content with me. You certainly don't need an RFC or arbcom. What for? Who are you arbitrating against? Yourself? Finally, as they say in GE, "I hate bureaucracy" and "Just do it".  Wallie 08:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the accusation of trolling, you should not use this very insulting language, when you have disagreement with someone over content, or even think they are incompetent. Extreme personal attacks of this nature invariably elicit a response. Wallie 08:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the article I changed on John Howard, the source does not contradict the "Honest John" statement. There is some editorial comment that does though. I was referring to the public perception, and giving a source to back it up. He is known as "Honest John" is Australia... Gadfium, we cannot get things perfect first time every time we make an edit. Some Australian editors have aleady taken me on about these edits. That's OK. These articles "evolve" over time. (It does appear somtimes  that you are acting as some sort of gatekeeper for the Southern Hemisphere.) Wallie 10:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Not wanting to get into this, but, since I accidentally did, you could consider a content RFC rather than a conduct RFC. Often enough, people who haven't been editing will take a stand and help settle content disputes there. Beyond that, if Wallie is demonstrably having editing trouble, where his meaning isn't clear and the two of you are therefore in dispute, it might be a mentoring situation. Surely there can be some way of working these things out harmoniously, as it sounds like you're both interested in helping the encyclopedia. Geogre 19:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I largely see Wallie's edits as being in good faith and for trying to sort things out. I've recommended that Wallie use the talkpage to propose major edits before doing them, which may help to calm the situation. --Midnighttonight 01:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit war in Gorgeous George (TV personality), possibly legal threats
I stumbled upon this article a few months ago. The original article was probably written by people who collect prank calls to his show and was very derisive. I wrote a new version of it, based on the facts in George's own homepage. Now there is a big edit war going on, anon user claiming to be George has posted on the talk page and removed parts of the article, his edits however, have been reverted by an other user. The comments on the talk page hint a bit towards legal action. I would also like to hear if you think this article is even notable enough and how much the article should concentrate on the prank calls. Lapinmies 08:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The subject has made several complaints to OTRS, but unfortunately noone could deal with them because the request was not specific enough (search didn't turn up this article when I was looking for it only yesterday). Any "legal threats" are probably a result of this. I've protected to stop any more vandalism, and to allow for some investigation into the source. --bainer (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of User:Vr
I've blocked for following accounts as sockpuppets of :

Please review to see if this is appropriate. I think the evidence is very strong (style of edits, contribution distribution and timing) but as this is the first time I've blocked socks without a checkuser being completed (other than blatant vandals) I wanted to check. Petros471 12:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock
was blocked, he was then unblocked, but the block still seems to be in place and the autoblocker seems to still be working (see Special:Ipblocklist). Could someone please fix this. Thanks. Telex 14:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I've tried. Let me know how it goes. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

User:24.61.232.186 adding questionnaire to AfD page
An IP user keeps adding a questionnaire of sorts to Articles for deletion/Jay Surdukowski. I moved it to the talk page for the AfD because it's taking up a lot of room on the main discussion page and I don't think it's necessary to have. It seems like the user is trying to prove a point through this survey. After I moved it to the talk page (and left a comment on the AfD explaining why I moved it), the user has restored it , I removed it again explaining my reasons in the summary , and now it has been restored. The user also blanked the talk page after I put the discussion there. Any help or advice anyone could give would be much appreciated. Thanks Metros232 15:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be kept on the talk page. I've removed it from the discussion again and warned the anon who keeps adding it about 3RR. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Merecat continues attacks
Attacking other editors, striking/editing others' comments (including admin responses to unblock requests, while repeating those requests). Even blocked, this user is compelled to engage in troublesome behavior. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've protected the talk page. Can someone tell me the policy on indef-banned users and their talk pages?  Will  ( <sup style="margin-right: -0.2em">E <sub style="margin-left: -0.2em">@ )  T  15:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Policy? Who knows. I do know that we've protected indef-banned talk pages in such situations. Mackensen (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If someone is blocked for a limited time, they can access their talk page. My understanding is that a hardbanned or indefinitely blocked user is not allowed to set foot on WP. That includes on their talk page. Maybe when we indefinitely block someone we should automatically lock their talk page, or the software should be adapted to automatically do that. FearÉIREANN \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint) 15:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is always the possibility of an accidental indefinite block. Should such a thing happen and if there was an automatic talk page protecting mechanism, then the user in question would have a very difficult time contacting the one who blocked them. I was once indefinitely blocked for accidentally reverting the main page to a vandalized version, and I didn't have an e-mail in my preferences at the time so I would not have had any way to get myself unblocked, for example. Cowman109<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 16:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Cow/dog image vandal
There is a vandal operating from Energis UK's IP ranges, defacing user talk pages with dog and/or cow images. Please watch out for him/her. --Nlu (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Bullying tactics of a proselytising admin

 * Check this out. I'd like to know what are my options. I'd like a public apology. Anwar saadat 17:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please check this too: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&diff=prev&oldid=53174709 --Bhadani 17:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * comments by me:
 * Any human being knowing about Islam shall get a shok if a Muslim announces publicly that he takes drink. It is a natural reaction.
 * The legal position as obtaining in India or any other country can not be changed because we are ditors of wikipedia. Can a citizen of the USA announce through the medium of wikipedia that he wants the state of New York to become independent. Shall the law (of the USA) not takes its couse, if another citizen of the USA takes the issue to the American Courts. --Bhadani 17:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The editors if he is a citizen of India is chargeable with treason. I am pretty sure of that - and I am stating the legal position, and not making any Legal Threat as i am well aware of the policies of wikipedia. My friend should care about the Wikipedia more than announcing his perosnal feelings and fancies on his User page. --Bhadani 17:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Bhadani, whether you are shocked or not is your business, but since your attentions are clearly unwelcome, perhaps you could keep them to yourself? Also, it's not your business to try to enforce your interpretation of Indian law; if you think that Anwar is acting illegally, take it to the Foundation's lawyers. HenryFlower 17:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned telling someone that they may be accused of treason is, if not a legal threat, at least deeply uncivil and provocative. I would suggest, Bhadani, that you keep your 'friendly advice' to yourself if this is the form it takes. And whether Anwar drinks alcohol is, frankly, none of your business as a Wikipedia editor either. I don't see it as particularly shocking, no more than a Christian saying he's gay, for example. The concern about whether Wikipedia could be blocked in India I have addressed as a reply to Bhadani's post on Village pump (miscellaneous), as I feel it is more appropriate there. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My reply to Henry: my intentions are not unwelcome, I was really shocked and so I expressed them to his talk pag. As regards assertions on the user page, I would like to draw the attention to a proclamation on the Mindspillage's page. Moreover, I have already raised the issue at the village pump. I am not trying to enforce the interpretation of India law, I was trying to expalin to him the exact legal position and the difficulties in which he may find himself, in case, he is a citizen of India. At the same time, I was explaining about the possibility of an Indian citizen taking the mattter to the Indian Court based on such proclamation. It may not count much to non-Indians, but even a thought of a distinct possibility of denial of access of wikipedia to Indians like me shall mattter much.  I have placed the position for the information of community, and if the community so feels, the matter may be taken to the Foundation's lawyers. Your interpretation that my intentions are unwelcome is wrong,  as I am acting in the best interest of the Wikipedia; and stating the factual position. Regards. --Bhadani 18:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Whilst I totally think you were trying to be helpful, it can't be true that your intentions were welcome- if they were welcome you wouldn't find this report here on ANI. Anyway, I suggest just letting the issue drop, and try and keep your shock over people's personal habits to yourself in future :) Petros471 18:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is surely evident that Wikipedia would not be legally culpable were Anwar's comments indeed in contravention of Indian law (even as I don't think they are), and so Bhadani's decision to inform Anwar as to potential problems arising from his comments was certainly not one he was compelled as an admin totake; notwithstanding Bhadani's evident good faith, he should have known that Anwar's statements of views--divisiveness aside--in no way legally imperil Wikipedia. At the very least, were his intention (as I think it was) simply to apprise Anwar in order that Anwar shouldn't face legal troubles, he ought to have done so much more decorously.  The drinking comment was rather untoward, I think, inasmuch as it didn't seem as much a genuine expression of surprise as an intimation of Anwar's being a bad Muslim; I'm certain that such sense wasn't intended, but it was nevertheless present.  I had occasion recently to meet a user who, like I, is a member of Amnesty International but who advocated on his user page certain positions inconsistent with such membership.  I queried him on his talk page about the conflation but made clear (a) that he oughtn't to infer any normative assessment (that my question was one of genuine interest) and (b) that he should feel under no obligation to answer what was surely an untoward (or at least unduly personal) question.  A productive discussion ensued, and I found someone with whom I look forward to collaborating on encyclopedic content in the future.  Certainly every Wikipedian has written here things of which we later think better, but Bhadani would do well to apologize and watch his comments a bit more carefully.  Joe 20:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Bhadani, however much he may protest otherwise, is indeed engaging in legal threats. I would support an RFArb over this issue, as I have supported others in the past.  However, if Bhadani is willing to apologize and promise to not do it again, let it drop. Nandesuka 18:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I can agree that it wasn't a very tactful thing to say, and Bhadani should let the matter drop without pursuing it further (and be careful about saying similar things in future) but a RfAr would be totally over the top. This was clearly a good faith attempt to warn someone of a (perceived) potential problem. Petros471 18:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the self-proclaimed Muslim who drinks alcohol, this doesn't particularly shock me; there are many people in the world who style themselves adherents of some religion or other while disobeying or disagreeing with some of the rules or precepts of that religion, such as Catholics who use birth control. Such matters are between them, their church/mosque/temple's authorities, and their deity, and are not Wikipedia's business to enforce or get shocked or offended by.  Neither is it Wikipedia's business to enforce the laws of different countries regarding what sorts of speech or opinions are lawful; if the Wikimedia legal department sees a legitimate legal risk they might take action based on it, but otherwise our normal NPOV standards apply and no position is taken one way or the other on political conflicts.  (Where the matter concerns userbox statements, as this one does, it's yet another example of the divisiveness and distractiveness of those darned things.)  And as far as I know there's nothing in U.S. law that would ban an American from advocating the secession of New York or any other state; I know of actual seccessionist movements in Texas and Hawaii which are not intrinsically illegal (though some actions they take could be unlawful). *Dan T.* 20:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If, like Bhadani and Joe, you feel the need to contact a Wikipedian over something that has nothing to do with Wikipedia and may not be well-received, I would suggest keeping Wikipedia out of any potential strife by not using Wikipedia to make contact. That is, email them. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam is altogether correct here; even as my question wasn't adversarial and indeed helped me to form a relationship with a user with whom I'll collaborate in the future, my initial contact ought to have been off-Wiki, and we'd all do well to follow Sam's suggestion. Joe 03:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my dear friends, firstly, my message to him was not in the capacity as an administrator, but by way of a friendly advice. I do accept that I should have used the words in a diffirent manner. Firstly, as regards the drinks, I withdraw my comments, I stand corrected in view of the clarifications made by you all. Now, I am not shocked any more. As regards the other point, my dear friends, I was actually trying to help a fellow wikipedian (in case, he is an Indian citizen) to the potential problems to which he was exposing himself. Now, if someone wants to set up RFArb, I feel helpless. However, I am sure that Nandesuka should now get convinced of my intentions: as explained above, I was not engaging in any overt or covert legal threats, and my intention was really to help another wikipedian to avoid potential problems for him, with an adverse affect on us. As suggested, in future, I shall take up such issues through wiki-mails.

Please also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&diff=prev&oldid=53300412

Regards. --Bhadani 12:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Anybody making treason accusations generally ends up in a mess. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we move on past this? It keeps shopwing up in search engines. It is not fair to either identity. JUST REMOVE THIS -- PLEASE!!!

Blocking of a suspected WoW sockpuppet
I recently happened across 66.25.132.168, a suspected WoW sockpuppet. This IP also appears to be Bobaboba and WoW2006. If you look at the contributions of the IP address, it is clear that the user has been using Wikipedia responsibly for quite some time. As is seen by his edit history, though, at one point he or she decided to play a practical joke.

On May 12th the user used the account Bobaboba to move two pages to their respective "on wheels" pages. this diff shows the user is clearly confused by his or her actions.

I think if you look at it, this is clearly not a WoW sockpuppet but someone who decided to play a joke that obviously went much too far. I think the point has already been put across to him as well. Cowman109<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 22:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Random bits of evidence

The edits on May 11 of the IP's history show clear hostility towards Danny Lilithborne, though in my opinion this simply shows a young kid (I only infer this from his heavy editing of Pokemon related articles) who wants to edit but has recently been blocked due to his WoW-like impersonation on the May 12th edits in which he moved two articles to their respective 'on wheels' pages.


 * The problem is that I don't particularly believe him. But that's my opinion. I won't stop anyone from unblocking him, but neither do I recommend that they do so. Nandesuka 23:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How would the user's extensive edit history be explained, otherwise? Were I an administrator I would not unblock him without community consensus either. Cowman109<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 00:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems I overlooked that this user was already listed up above at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. There were a few contributions I missed that were mentioned there, so it seems it's best this user remains indef. blocked after all. Cowman109<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 00:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Just an observation...
Just noticed User:Anal sex and the infamous phrase "...on wheels" in an edit summary...Don't know where to put my feeling that something could be up here, so hope this is the right place for a "heads up" doktorb | words 23:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep WOW has been quite active tonight. The accounts are being blocked by curps bot. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

He continues to remove warnings from his talk page and remove tags from Queen's University. Ardenn 00:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is vandalism being posted on my Talk Page by the user above. I have tried to resolve the dispute by many means, including compromise, offering links and citations to support my contributions to the Queen's Talk Page, and other measures. PLEASE, could an outside neutral and unbiased third party help mediate this dispute. I do not wish to have my editing privleges removed so it would be greatly appreciated if an administrator could help me with this. Thank you to any willing to donate their time to mediate this! Best regards all! 70.28.199.81 00:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Then don't remove warnings from your talk page, and remove tags from Queen's University. Ardenn  00:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't add needless warnings to talk pages. You are being needlessly agressive here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Then he shouldn't remove the SectOR and Content tags from Queen's University. Ardenn  00:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For the final time, Ardenn, and I really shouldn't even have to say this. You don't want me to remove needless tags? Don't remove the hard work of others. I have worked tirelessly to improve the Queen's page and, being a student at the school, am proud of it. You went ahead and deleted, in a highly arrogant and self-righteous manner it appears, the work of myself and others without consideration or a group discussion. Raise a question about the information, question it all you want. That is ACCEPTABLE. I have no issue with that at ALL. What I do have a problem with is you vandalizing the article then trying to wreck my user page with warnings, when I am trying to cooperate and work with you, but your pride is attacking me. I DON'T APPPRECIATE THAT. Please stop. I want a third neutral party to help this dispute since your pride is keeping it from going anywhere. 70.28.199.81 00:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Ardenn seems to be the agressor here.  I have no idea why Ardenn would be so determined to root out unsourced statements on this article that he would violate 3RR over it.  And, for whatever my opinion is worth, I think longstanding traditions are worthy of inclusion.  You just need to find some publication that mentions these traditions; the local newspaper, even the alumni magazine would be an appropriate primary source in this case.  Online sources are not required if you can provide the date and page number of a book or magazine that is not online that is fine too. Thatcher131 01:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

user:Talkerbot2
I've just discovered what looks to be an imposter of user:Tawkerbot2 - User:Talkerbot2. The user and user talk pages are identical to the versions of Tawkerbot2's pages that were live as of 08:00 3 May 2006. Although the account has no contributions other than to create the user and user talk pages, I've blocked it indefinately as a suspected sleeper/impostor account. For reference I found it while looking at Category:Emergency shutoff compliant bots.

I've asked user:Tawker to take a look at this and either unblock or replace the user and user talk pages with the impostor template, although anyone else is of course welcome to investigate too. Thryduulf 00:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, another impostor. I've deleted the old edits and replaced with the standard impostor notice, I think we're up to 20 impostors or so, the bot isn't that good :o -- Tawker 00:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User Mir Hrven - repeated personal attacks, has been blocked for them before, many warnings
vandalises userpages, repeated personal attacks to many users (has been warned several (at least 3) times, but continues to insult other users; has been banned for this before), insults in edit summaries; extremely disruptive with no respect for wikipedia rules whatsoever SradkaW 02:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Article Kaiser Permanente; userUser:Pansophia
Edit war, 3rr, personal attacks. Previous form and trouble at that article. Midgley 03:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My understanding is 3RR in cases of harassment? The complaint about Midgley can be found here: complaint. Also see my talk page - someone already looked into this. --Pansophia 03:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, there's way too much reverting going on at that article. In any case, 3RR reports are properly made at WP:AN3.  Joe 03:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's because Midgley recruited people to pile on me. See Calton and here's Rhobite. The goal of Calton and Rhobite is to get me banned or the page frozen instead of having to talk to and compromise with me. I've given way to them on a number of occasions. Midgley is just trying to make trouble. --Pansophia 04:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Pansophia has now removed accuracy tags from the article 8 times within just a few hours, with no sign of slowing down. Rhobite 04:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Midgley recruited people to pile on me The fact that people could be "recruited" should have been a clue to the unilateral nature of your edits. And as for "get[ting you] banned", myself and others have no control over self-inflicted wounds. --Calton | Talk 05:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The user is blocked now. As I said on the 3RR page perhaps if Calton, Rhobite and/or some experienced mediators could keep an eye on User talk:Pansophia the user may be willing to discuss things, but I'm not sure. I'll leave it to those involved editors for now. Just another star in the night T 05:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Chronic Vandalism needs intervention
has been chronically vandalizing the Sexual harassment article for months. He deletes useful information (particularly if it is cited by American research) and continually tries to rewrite the article to his own personal point of view. When called on his behavior and informed of the rules, he would simply scoff or resort to personal attacks. I stopped trying to communicate with him on the talk page, and simply began to revert his deletions and report the vandalism. I have reported him before several times, and I believe he has been warned. Today, he deleted information again, which I reverted. He then reported me as a "sockpuppet" vandal and tried to have the page protected so I could no longer revert his deletions. (I don't always log in when I edit, but I've never deliberately tried to make it look as if additional people were editing the page.) I reported him again today. Now, he has someone else doing his deletions. is now doing the deletions. Could someone please intervene in this situation. It is getting ludicrous Thanks! Aine63 03:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute; it is not even close to vandalism. Please see Vandalism, and please do not report as vandalism that which is not.  Thank you.  Chick Bowen 03:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Chick is, to be sure, correct, but I think we might well advise the involved parties to use the article's talk page. Even as some discussion apropos of this issue took place a while ago, there has not been one substantive post to Talk:Sexual harassment in nearly two months.  Revert warring is generally looked upon with disfavor and should be avoided wherever possible.  Joe 03:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referred here by another administrator. My understanding that deleting useful and factual information is vandalism according to the Wikipedia policy--isn't this called "blanking?" I quit using the talk page because this user is very much a troll--he argues and argues really riduculous points just to argue, then he resorts to personal attacks when he isn't agreed with. It was so exhausting that I just gave up and began reverting his deletions and reporting the vandalism. (Please note that I never revert his contributions that are good additions, just the destructive ones that erase quality content written by others.) I was unaware of the 3 revert rule, and will pay close attention next time. Still, I don't know what to do with this situation because it is useless to argue with a troll. Aine63 04:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a content dispute-- not vandalism. You say he makes destructive edits. He says the same bout you. I would suggest you make a case for your version on the talk page. Perhaps you can provide sources for information he claims are unsourced. Allow him to do the same. Then ask a third party to review and make suggestions. Invite others who have contributed to the article to help establish consensus. Wikipedia is about consensus-- not labelling someone good or bad. Please try to be objective-- labelling someone a troll might be seen as violating WP:ATTACK and WP:AGF. Step back from the article for a couple of days. Relax and avoid burnout or becoming overly frustrated. Hope this helps. :) Dlohcierekim 04:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. But since I've already been attacked several times by Meta from the very beginning, I don't feel much guilt about labeling him. All you have suggested I tried to do with him in the beginning. (His first personal attacks came when he deleted information in favor of his own and I asked him to back it up with sources.) But it doesn't really focus on the real problem. I'm not making a case for "my version" as it wasn't my information he deleted, and it has been there for months. The only reason he deleted this info (he would view it as American info) because he was angry I added some new information backed up by American sources. My case is for his constant deletions and revisions of factual information simply because he personally does not like them or because he does not want an "American Voice" in the article. Why doesn't he just add his point of view, rather than erase the points of view of others in favor of his own? He won't do this; what he does must be at the expense of other's contributions.

But yes, I will take your advice and step back from the article for a bit. I believe strongly in the Wiki community and the belief in consensus. Thanks again for your feedback. Let's hope this all quiets down now. Aine63 05:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User:SiOfUmbar
I appear to have defamed James Hewitt without sources. My mistake. Have a look at Prince Harry's page and remove it from the history, please. Ta 12:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)~

User:Captain scarlet
This user keeps reverting other users at Saint-Germain-en-Laye, insisting on using British English usage and spelling. In particular, he insists that we should use the word "transport" instead of "transportation", because supposedly the word "transportation" is American English. I already explained to him on his talk page that the Manual of Style clearly stated that "when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change", but it was to no avail. He has deleted my message on his talk page, but you can find it here. You can also notice that Captain Scarlet created on his user page a special language tag that I am reproducing here:

Other incidents involving Captain Scarlet were already reported, but they were archived without explanation. You can find the archived incidents here: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive94. Hardouin 12:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This naming incident is a misguided attempt. Tranportation was not changed to British English but brought in line with the article for transport Transport in France. It makes sence to have all articles refering to transportation in France to match the national article. I have been unable to have Hardouin see the importance of consistency throughout french articles in this matter. All messages from Hardouin have been kept and archived. The language template has been on Wikipedia for months and I am not its creator, the template was deleted (see Template:User_AmE-0, where its history is protected). Regards, Captain scarlet 13:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Without wanting to get involved in the dispute: the Manual of Style says that "[if] there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used." There is no official French dialect of English, so "the dialect of the first significant contributor should be used." The first significant contributor was here. If you wish to see the wording changed to match the main relevant category, Captain scarlet, argue for it on the article's talk page. But there is nothing at this point in the wikipedia namespace policies and guidelines to mandate your change, and edit warring certainly doesn't help. Aecis AppleknockerFlophouse 14:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC) (note: I am not saying that the section can never be called Transport, I'm saying that this is not the way to achieve such a change.)


 * This article is on a place in France, so European English (British English) should be used according to the Manual of Style. —Ruud 15:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Woah! That is a significant change in the understanding of English dialects.  When did that slip through?  User:Zoe|(talk) 16:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm sorry, Mr. Koot, but I don't think that's accurate. The Manual of Style doesn't mention any sort of British dominion over articles pertaining to European topics.  It's my recollection that the British ultimately lost the 100 Years War, so articles about French topics aren't held to either British or American English. JDoorj a m     Talk 16:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems there was some discussion last week on clarifying the MoS on this point: Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style. I made the same inference as Woodstone did in that discussion: the article is related to France and, if the situation is similar to that in the Netherlands, the French are thaught British English at school. That said, this edit war exceeds the usual lameness of spelling wars. —Ruud 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The two editors above me are right: there is no such mention in the Manual of Style. In fact, the only mention that comes remotely close to Europe is this: "Article on European Union institutions: British, Irish and Maltese English usage and spelling". In other words: wikipedia has no preference for British English over other dialects of English when it comes to Europe. The only thing in the Manual of Style that applies here is that "the dialect of the first significant contributor should be used." The first significant contributor is Hardouin, and he/she used Transportation. Aecis AppleknockerFlophouse 17:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto what Aecis & JDoorjam wrote, I won't go any deeper. JackLumber 20:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ugh. Another candidate for a job at the soup kitchen.  The key is consistency within an article.  Beyond that, the status quo has an advantage over any change.  Anyone changing for pigheaded, chauvanistic reasons is no better than a vandal.  If a person is changing not to correct mistakes in information, not to aid in coherence, but rather because he or she is a bigot about his own nation or a visionary who wants to assume what other nations should write like.  What is the difference between someone rewriting an article that is consistent and clear to reflect his personal fetish for language and someone doing so to reflect his personal political views?  Both are changes that do not aid anyone but the editor, and that's not what we're here for.  Geogre 23:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because I have nothing better to do...okay, that's a lie, but I couldn't help myself. From Google:


 * 1,810,000 for behaviour site:.fr
 * 1,600,000 for behavior site:.fr


 * 11,700,000 for licence site:.fr
 * 6,170,000 for license site:.fr


 * 84,500 for petrol site:.fr
 * 44,000 for gasoline site:.fr


 * 31,500 for "different to" site:.fr
 * 509,000 for "different from" site:.fr.


 * 44 for "estate wagon" site:.fr
 * 26,300 for "station wagon" site:.fr


 * 449 for rubber tyre site:.fr
 * 10,100 for rubber tire site:.fr


 * 60,000 for lorry site:.fr
 * 367,000 for truck site:.fr

I'm not seeing a whole lot of dominance by any particular variety of English, based on this rough survey. --Calton | Talk 00:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you take into account that "licence" and "tire" are also French words? This thwarted my attempt to see if the French prefer American over British humo(u)r. —Ruud 00:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, but it might explain the bulges in their results. And since the French love Jerry Lewis, clearly the French prefer American over British humo(u)r. --Calton | Talk 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My reason for changing Transportation to Transport had nothing to do with changing American to English but to appky consistency between Transport in France to a section of transport in France, as state in all of my edit summaries. Replying to Calton and as a parenthesis, English is taught in France rather than American, I'd know. The above debate if off topic since the reason for changing the chapter header was not the reason stated by Hardouin as seen in my edit summaries. It is though likely that I will report Hardouin on other matters of vandalism and unwillingness to cooperate with other editors, myself and others. Regards Captain scarlet 16:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I recomend taking this american vs british argument to somewhere else. -- Cat out 23:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Captain Scarlet's argument that he changed the spelling only to conform to Transport in France is a bit of a joke. Transport in France was originally called Transportation in France and was moved to Transport in France only a month ago apparently by another user who doesn't like American English either. Is that how things should work on Wikipedia? By the way, in France there is no particular English spelling taught in schools. Both American and British English spellings are taught, depending on the English teacher. Traditionally the English manuals were more oriented towards British English, but these days with the arch-domination of the US in the world and the fascination of French people for the US it is rather American English that has the upper hand in schools. Parents insist on the school teachers teaching American English to their kids, with US material (recordings, videos, etc). Hardouin 20:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You may see this as a joke, just as much as it seems others see your edits as a joke, but since I have spent half my life in french education, I am french, I have lived in France, I would find comments like your rather obscure. As I always say, If I make the effort to make an edit, or a comment I know it is true. If I'm unsure, I don't mention it.
 * Transportation in France was changed Trnasport in France, quite rightfully, and as such any article containing Transport in France)) should use the same approrpriate naming, for consistency's sake. I have edit a handful of articles, making few of those featured within the following day in accordance to [[Transport in France and to nothing else, wether you accept it or not, that is a fact.
 * Wikipedia is no place for PoV, it is about facts, consistency, efficiency and certainty, if you do not know what indend on editing, do not edit it. Captain scarlet 22:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You have not proved that I have done any wrong doing, merely that you do not like my edits and comments, which is nothing against Wikipedia and what it stands for since PoV are irrelevant. I suggest you sit at the table and talk. Captain scarlet 22:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement with SlimVirgin Over Removal of Talk Page Comments, Removal of Unreplied-To Comments, Etc.
SlimVirgin removed User:203.122.215.44's comments on the Wikitruth talk page. Please note that the text of the edit description is a standard rollback message. I reverted same when I noticed, per WP:TPG ("Avoid deleting comments on talk pages, particularly comments made by others") and WP:VAN ("Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism"). I posted a note to SlimVirgin's talk page asking her not to do same, reminding her of the policy violations in a rather mild way.

SlimVirgin's response stated the removal was because the comments were made by a banned user, and that I should have assumed good faith. I responded, "Your response seems to be based upon the following: first, that I am able to swiftly connect a post signed as 203.122.215.44 with a user named Zordrac; second, that assuming I knew 203.122.215.44 was Zordrac, that I would know he was banned by the Arbitration Committee; third, that it is appropriate to remove anonymous comments; and fourth, that somehow not making these assumptions is a violation of WP:AGF. WP:AGF also quite clearly states, 'ssuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, it only means that one should not ascribe said action to malice.' I don't believe I ascribed malice to you at any point, just criticism." 

SlimVirgin replied, "I'm not going to argue with you about it. When you see an admin removing material, assume there is a reason, and don't assume the admin is a vandal. Just because you're not familiar with the reason doesn't mean it doesn't exist." She directed me to make further replies on her talk page, or else she wouldn't see it. (See Wikipedia's recommended reply policy, which this counters.)

Following her request to make further replies on her talk page, I went there. I stated that her lack of description in the edit description did not assist editors in WP:AGF, and that absent that, it was difficult to assume good faith when witnessing an act that is quite literally a textbook example of vandalism. I also asked her if she could provide a cite as to policy that allowed removal of anonymous edits that were suspected to have come from a banned user, as I could find no such policy. I also noted I had trouble with the way she phrased her response. 

She blanked that section of the talk page with the edit description "unbelievable". I posted a note to her page citing Wikipedia policy regarding blanking unreplied-to items on a personal talk page. She blanked this response, too.

I solicit administrators' opinions on the following issues:

First, does policy exist that allows administrators to remove talk page comments made by people suspected to be banned users? If so, can you please provide the policy cites, which SlimVirgin was unwilling to do?

Second, was I to somehow swiftly connect a post signed as 203.122.215.44 with a user named Zordrac; know that 203.122.215.44 was Zordrac (or was suspected of same); know Zordrac was banned by the Arbitration Committee; and know that removal of his comments was permissible, all on my own? And was my failure to do so assuming bad faith?

Third, is SlimVirgin's statement that I did not assume good faith correct? "Yelling 'Assume Good Faith' at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions," says WP:AGF, and as the earlier-quoted example outlines, criticism does not constitute assuming bad faith; I did not ascribe malice.

Fourth, has SlimVirgin conducted herself incivilly in her responses to my actions and in her repeated blanking of her talk page? I believe she could have been much less prickly in her handling of this matter.

Fifth, is this the appropriate forum for this query? I do not think this matter is serious enough to go higher in the dispute resolution chain, but if the Mediators' Cabal or Mediation Committee is a more appropriate venue, I can inquire there. I doubt that the Arbitration Committee is appropriate, but I am not well-versed in the dispute resolution areas of Wikipedia, so would appreciate others' feelings on this issue.

I appreciate your responses in advance. &mdash; WCityMike (talk &bull; contribs &bull; where to reply) 01:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you should go straight to the arbitration committee with this one, WCM. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * WCityMike, I implore you to exercise common sense rather than following a rigid application of policy and guideline pages. If you wanted to know why SlimVirgin rolled back an edit like that, you should have asked her instead of accusing her in the first place; once it was explained, you should have gone ahead and assumed SV was pretty good at identifying the banned user by his editing style; once your campaign got to the point where SV was removing you from her talk page, you should have gone "no harm has been done and I am now annoying somebody" instead of posting this here. One grape's opinion. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ...."assumed SV was pretty good at identifying the banned user by his editing style"....that scares me! For the record, I am a new in here and have delt with SlimVirgin, and she was approachable and civil with me.--Backroomlaptop 05:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sixth, please try to find some real problems on the wiki to engage with instead of that tiny microscopic at this distance quite invisible affront. Believe me, we have them. Bishonen | talk 02:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC).
 * Wait a minute, you were kidding, right? Bishonen | talk 02:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC).


 * I'd like to clarify your positions. Are you saying then that it's perfectly permissible then for administrators to be incivil (not only SlimVirgin but now Bishonen) despite WP:CIVIL, blank their talk pages without responding to unanswered questions despite WP:TPG, remove material from webpages talk pages without indicating their reasons why despite WP:VAN and WP:TPG, and instruct editors who disagree with their actions that they shouldn't criticize, inquire, or revert due to WP:AGF? &mdash; WCityMike (talk &bull; contribs &bull; where to reply) 02:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * WCityMike, normally reminding a user of policy is the appropriate approach, but when the user is an admin, you should probably assume that they know about policy. The best course of action here would have been to ask SV why she was removing the comments. That way there wouldn't have been any problem. I don't think anyone's setting out to be uncivil, but it can be frustrating when these sorts of issues snowball into a big issue when they shouldn't have been problematic at all.
 * For the record, 203.122.215.44 is almost certainly Internodeuser (Zordrac was a sock of that user): same ISP, same interests (Brandt, Wikitruth, Wikipedia Review) and same style. --bainer (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Which can be confirmed here: . -- 16:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's interesting how the responses so far have so avidly focused on what I could have done to prevent the situation from escalating. Have any of you looked at it from the viewpoint of the average, well-meaning editor who may not have an intimate knowledge of the Wikipedian bureaucracy?  How about, for example, if SlimVirgin had put a edit description that actually described what she was doing?  I can tell you I would have never reverted her change if it had said, "Reverted additions to Talk page made by banned user posting anonymously."


 * Or let's just say she didn't do that, but posit a different response that didn't come across as a "just trust us" pat on the head. Something like, "I appreciate your attempt to safeguard Wikipedia policy, but I actually knew what I was doing there: the user posting anonymously was a user whose account had been banned but who was posting anonymously.  If next time you could just check with me prior to reverting my changes, it'll save us all a lot of work.  Thanks. -- SlimVirgin".


 * I can absolutely assure you that if the first had happened, I'd never have reverted, and if the second had happened, I'd have actually probably responded with something akin to, "Oh, geez, sorry about that. Lesson learned.  Have a good evening."


 * Even if she hadn't done the above, if she didn't then refuse to talk about the issue on my talk page, specifically instruct me to head over to her talk page, and then eliminate the discussion outright on her page while describing it using a snark edit description, I probably would've just chalked the situation as an unpleasant experience, and gone on surfing or doing something differently this evening.


 * I understand that as admins, you want to express solidarity with each other. That sort of kinship is admirable if looked at with the right viewpoint.  But I just find it really disturbing that the response here tonight has been seemingly that it is perfectly acceptable for an admin to specifically violate several policies and guidelines, and then, when that violation causes confusion, chide the user as if it was their fault.  It implies that once that magic RfA gets granted, you've suddenly got a lot more social weight in disagreements.  (Of course, I assume it doesn't hurt if the person has about five thousand barnstars.)


 * And then when the user comes here to try to hash things out politely without clogging up the dispute resolution process, instead get a lot of snark and "shoo, fly" stuff tossed at them -- thanks, Bishonen -- is even more disturbing.


 * Spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, y'know. A little kindness and courtesy can go a helluva long way. &mdash; WCityMike (talk &bull; contribs &bull; where to reply) 03:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither Bishonen nor SlimVirgin were incivil. Civility is not "be totally as kind as posible all the time and give everyone hugs and kisses". Sure, we could all be somewhat more polite at times, but there is no policy stating that being even slightly less and sweetness and light is unacceptable, far from it. Now please, move off of this absurdly miniscule topic and go do something more productive. Forgive & Forget, I suppose.--Sean Black <sup style="color:#FC0FC0;">(talk)  06:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, agreed, but the rule isn't applied consistently. I wouldn't even particularly care if that is what it said, as long as it was treated as saying that all the time instead of whenever it suits the needs of any particular admin.  Rogue 9 13:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * While different users have different views of "civility", I might add that this should be viewed not so much a matter of policy, but a suggestion. If SlimVirgin had done this, she would not have had to deal with all of this. It isn't that she had done anything wrong, it is just that it would have been helpful to her to be more civil. A similar view would have prevented the whole Danny/Eloquence issue - being less abrasive in reversions, even when the other user is clearly at fault, can go a long way toward keeping such situations from happening. --Philosophus T 01:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Move along, nothing to see... FeloniousMonk 03:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? This demonstrates a great problem with Wikipedia, namely the arbitrary blankings, protections and deletions of history by the administrators, and their unwillingness to discuss their actions. Please realize, if this is not stopped soon it could well spell the death sentence of Wikipedia as a "free as in speech" encyclopedia. Meneth 12:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he is serious, and as usual he's wearing the blinkers that come with power. Oh mighty admins, if you might deign to take advice from a mere peon such as I, remember that patronizing someone tends to piss him off.  SlimVirgin handled this in exactly the wrong way, and the treatment of the resulting complaint is only compounding matters.  Rogue 9 13:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this issue is dead. I'm not an admin but just to throw a piece of evidence in. Zordac has admitted that he wrote the post in question. So SV was right about the blanking. jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 14:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not simply ban the entire Internode IP range? -- 16:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Uncivility report
Sorry but can someone please tell this User not to threaten and terrorise me like he did here and I quote: "...if you don't clean your above linked shit (yes, SHIT) from anywhere you left it...". With respect to his comment the ex-USSR images that the conflict is going on about concrens everybody. --Kuban Cossack 12:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This report initially posted to WP:AN by the author has been moved by me (Irpen) here where it belongs.


 * I would like to point the attention to my previous post about the same user's ( AlexPU (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [/wiki/Special:Log/move?page=User: page moves ] &bull; block user &bull; [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log ]) ) maintaining an attack page and perpetually unleashing uncivil diatribes there as well as all around Wiki


 * Another warning that followed apparently was also useless (it was the 9th(!) warning to no effect, as follows: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 8, 9).


 * A 24-hour block and 9(!) warnings apparently have no effect on the user. When his last block expired his entries were full of threats, name calling ( and ), more threats , addressing opponents by nationalities , other Russophobic entries , and a threat to support another user in an unrelated debate just to aggravate his opponents  ).


 * With 9 warnings and uneffective 24-hr block I would like to let it be known how the situation is. Trying to cool him down by so many people already makes starting an RfC useless. If I post this to ArbCom page, my feeling is that the vote would be ("reject, too obvious, just block him") since ArbCom is already slow due to an overload with much more complex cases. So, where do we go from now? --Irpen 19:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ArbComs primarily object cases these days because other attempts have not been made to resolve the situation, which is what an RfC is for. It could allow the user to get a wider perspective of how his behavior is viewed, as well as some idea of what could happen if he continues. --InShaneee 00:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Kuban kazak being himself highly incivil (and being blocked for this repeatedly) was the one who initiated the conflict by making incorrect and provocative claim on behalf of "whole Ukrainian community". Speaking of AlexPU and Irpen they are both longstanding contributors, and also edit-warriers, preoccupied by rather old insults. KPbIC 22:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't disinform the admin noticeboard I was blocked TWICE, first time for calling someone a troll, second time for the Image tag deprecation in a reaction which through all of us into outrage, both times I have apologised in the aftermath to the respective party. However you might want to mention on how long you kept an anonymous account and used your dynamic IP to edit war and thus bypass 3RR. --Kuban Cossack [[Image:Flag of the Russian Empire (black-yellow-white).svg|25px|]] 23:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Links and diffs about preoccupation of Irpen with AlexPU would be helpful. If there are none (and I claim so), there is nothing to speak about. Kuban kazak's insults were much softer (and I chastised him for them myself) and resulted in blocks whose time he served. Thanks largely to my repetitive calls, this user is much better now. If you have anything of substance to comment on the links and diffs of AlexPU above, say so. Otherwise, this looks like an attempt to defend an editor simply because he pushes the "right POV" despite his being a major pain to everyone here. Once he reforms himself I have no objection to his presense. He needs to get the message about behavior and he didn't get until now. If blocking him would help, he needs a block. If it would take an ArbCom action, I would go for it. If you could teach him out of it, go ahead. The evidence presented above speaks for itself. --Irpen 23:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * KPbIC, the flaw in your claim of "initiating the conflict" is chronological. AlexPU got back from his block on 8 May, and the edit by KK you're referring to is timestamped 14 May . That means that all those incivilities by AlexPU precede the edit by KK you're referring to...
 * And no matter the cause of the conflict, there are no excuses for AlexPU, as NPA should be the stance... -- Grafikm  <sup style="color:red;">(AutoGRAF)  23:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I ever interacted with User:AlexPU and, judging by the above comments, I don't think I would. The user is clearly disruptive. I suggest all involved parties to move further discussion of his behaviour to Requests for comment/AlexPU and then, if need be, to ArbCom. WP:ANI is not a place to discuss this, as no admins' intervention is likely to keep the guy at bay. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  07:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is that he was contacted by so many users who warned him to calm down that I perceive an RfC (whose goal is merely to request for comments from more people) a waste of time. ALready enough people commented to him at his and article's talk. There is no need to solicit for more opinions to the fact that keeping it civil is good and calling others "motherfuckers" is bad. ArbCom is fine with me if there is no action from here. I just thought that this is too plain obvious for an ArbCom to waste time. Almost every talk page entry by the user is an insult. What's more we need. Why bother ArbCom? But if no admin action or advise will follow, I am prepared for an ArbCom if others think that the ArbCom doesn't have anything better to do than deal with plain obvious WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:FAITH gross violators. --Irpen 07:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the suggestion of starting an RfC, as this user does appear to have some serious behavior issues. --InShaneee 00:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Procedure for Young Children on WP?
I've looked around and haven't seen a specific policy on this, so I'll ask here. What is the policy on very young children editing Wikipedia? Currently a user named User:Elmo12456 (alternate accounts: User:SetRochelewsad, User:SetRochele, User:Elmo12456♣, probably others) has been editing the dinosaur articles on WP. We immediately noticed the articles were mostly all bad info, and we've been working to correct the mistakes. Some users were originally labelling this as "vandalism", but these do seem to be good-faith edits, just horribly incorrect. In many, or even most instances, every word is incorrect (for example WP's article on Libycosaurus. We've tried, without success, to contact this user. He doesn't seem able to reply to his messages, although we have left many for him. It has occurred to me that it's possible this is a young child, and I recently noticed this user has many accounts, one of which edited the article on Dora_the_Explorer, making me wonder if my child hypothesis is correct. I also wondered if this wasn't maybe a joke account after looking at his animation-filled graphics-overloaded user page. This user has quite a few edits, and they've almost all been reverted. Advice? Ideas? What's the policy?--Firsfron 02:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There's alternate hypotheses besides "young child" that might be considered here. -- Cyde Weys 02:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I had also considered "joke account" and "troll", but discared the later after two or three actually useful edits.--Firsfron 03:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That wasn't really what I meant. I meant that there could be some attribute of the person besides "young child" that explains the overall quality of the edits.  -- Cyde Weys  03:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean perhaps mentally retarded? I guess that is also possible.--Firsfron 03:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Treat them as normal users; don't baby them, just make it clear as you would to a vandal that this is in fact an encyclopedia and jokes are not allowed. Ashibaka tock 04:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the advice, Ashibaka. --Firsfron 17:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I notice that this user has Image:Toby.png on their userpage. Toby was a pet 'child-protection' project (or, I suspect, a joke) of User:Xiong, who left Wikipedia in mid-September of last year, complaining that it has been overrun by children; Toby was discussed, very lightly (and mostly just by Xiong) for all of a few weeks during that period, a month or so before User:Elmo12456 arrived. All those discussions were in ancient archives by the time User:Elmo12456 decided to add Toby to their userpage, so the fact that User:Elmo12456 even knew that Toby existed seems very unusual. --Aquillion 07:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Toby thing "Toby is watching you!" creeps me out a little. It is strange that Elmo would have this, and his userpage is so overloaded with images and broken images that I originally thought it must be a joke account. --Firsfron 17:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. If nothing else, his User page is a nightmare! User:Zoe|(talk) 17:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Actually, it was worse. There were fair use images on it that I since removed, since he didn't respond to his message to remove them himself.--Firsfron 17:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Child or not, he is screwing up pages and refuses to acknowledge policy and procedure. Block with extreme prejudice and destroy that userpage while you're at it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 17:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is to block, I would need assistance, as I'm not an admin. If the consensus is to give him more warnings, I can of course do that.--Firsfron 17:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to concur with Aquillion's suspicions that this is actually a sockpuppet. Would a CheckUser be helpful here? --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's certainly possible this is a sock, but I can't make much out of this. I think a CU could be useful.--Firsfron 20:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Gah! Is there a policy on excessive userboxes? This user has just added at least 115 additional userboxes to his page, in addition to the 50-100 he already had. Add that to the animated gifs and full-sized images, and my browser is close to crashing. Also, one of the userboxes states he rates his professors, so he's obviously not a kid. My 'young child' theory goes out the window!--Firsfron 23:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps WP:POINT? &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 23:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * He was up to 1,200 userboxes a short while ago. I was bold and took the libery of reverting and placing a note on his talk page explaining why. I hope that doesn't get me in hot water. Actually, I'm not sure of the count. I did a Word-aided count of his page and counted over 600 in the first half of his page. I'm only assuming there were 600 more buried in the second half. Many of the userboxes were duplicates, and many flat-out contradicted others. This appears to be some kind of joke or hoax account, IMO.--Firsfron 00:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive revert war on Cuba
I have blocked, , , and for 24 hours, all for a variety of tandem WP:3RR violations and general disruptive revert warring over. These four users should know better. -- Cyde Weys 08:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction, has been blocked for one month for his violation of a personal attack parole, apparently. -- Cyde Weys 08:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Zleitzen unblocked because he had a relatively minor role in this. -- Cyde Weys 22:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Napster ere
seems to be using his user page as some kind of on-line forum. But he's the only one making changes. His contribs are all to his user page and his talk page. -- Samir  धर्म 09:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised! WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL totally worked in this instance. -- Cyde Weys 19:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments invited
A user has drawn my attention to a particular matter. I would request for comments.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bhadani&diff=53292186&oldid=53213384
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philwelch&diff=53291079&oldid=53290169

--Bhadani 12:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Samir and I have already made our peace over this issue. See User talk:Philwelch. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 12:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That is fine to learn, but not the point as we are not a private body, and so I would suggest that we wikipedians should be careful in the choice of our words. --Bhadani 13:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was in the wrong. I apologize to Samir. I'm not sure what else you want, bringing this up after it's already been settled, but allow me to suggest that this matter is, in fact, settled. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 13:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

K. If there's anyone I've missed, let me just make a general statement: I apologize for my incivility earlier. I hope we can put this episode behind us. I have already taken back my initial remarks about Nathan in favor of simply agreeing with someone else who was far more eloquent than I was about what was essentially the same viewpoint. Now let's write an encyclopedia. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I just hope all admins aren't as foulmouthed and incivil.-- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|)  14:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyber/physical stalking
In view of certain recent edits by me to wikipedia, my family members, particularly my wife have expressed apprehension of cyber-stalking as well as physical-stalking. Their apprehensions are based on certain e-mails received in our family’s mail box. Accordingly, she desires that following four images uploaded by me be deleted:


 * Image:Bank of India Chennai Main.jpg.jpg
 * Image:An Inside View of a Bank of India Office.jpg
 * Image:Bhadani In Early 1970s.jpg
 * Image:Rashmi Bhadani Late 1970s.jpg

I as the uploader of the above images request for deletion. I shall upload the same/ other images as and when my family members gain confidence. Regards and thanks. --Bhadani 14:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you orphan them first? Pages link there. Radio  Kirk   talk to me  14:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, User:Philwelch decided to be WP:BOLD :) Radio  Kirk   talk to me  14:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, they're deleted. Sorry to hear about the threats to your family's safety—I hope this is resolved soon. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 14:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I was highly stressed. Now, I am feeling a bit light. I shall continue my association with wikipedia. --Bhadani 15:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Preved
There has been an unusual pattern on the Preved article. A variety of IPs from around the world have been replacing the content with spam links about every other hour. It is a relatively low traffic article, so it takes some time for someone to notice revert. Any chance the links could be added to the spam blacklist, and/or get some more folks to temporarily watch the page? --TeaDrinker 18:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have it watched (I just had to do a revert again) and requested them placed on the spam blacklist as well at meta. --Syrthiss 19:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk spamming
I have blocked for 24 hours for talk page spamming using AWB. It seriously looks as if he was trying to go through all user categories nominated for deletion and spam the user talk page of every single person in them. Massive talk page spamming and vote recruitment goes entirely beyond what is established Wikipedia practice. In addition, since he was using entirely inappropriately using AWB, I have removed him from the CheckPage. -- Cyde Weys 19:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could let him off with a warning? First offense and all.  And bans are not meant to be punitive, only preventative.  I know that user, and have no reason to suspect he wouldn't respond to comments. -lethe talk [ +] 20:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It was a preventative block. The talk page spamming was ongoing when I placed the block.  -- Cyde Weys  20:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't it policy, as well as just good manners, to leave someone a note after you've blocked them? I'm going to do that for you, and then I'm going to unblock. -lethe talk [ +] 20:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * All well and good, but if he starts up again it is your duty to restore the block. Mackensen (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Zzzzz
This user has taken to spamming about what he sees as spam, and is endlessly posting about spam on Template_talk:Featured and other places. I think he is being purely disruptive, and I've asked him several times to try and be more constructive, but he just keeps on shouting "SPAM!!" at anyone and everyone. If anyone else thinks this looks disruptive, could they try leaving him a note to ask him to tone it down? Thanks. Some relevant diffs are:


 * Talk page spamming: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 * Incessant accusations of spamming:, , , , , ,
 * Some increasingly irritated attempts to get him to calm down and talk productively:, , , , ,.


 * Worldtraveller 21:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

yawn... if the GA spammers were willing to discuss their reasoning behing adding the GA spam to Template:featured - i'm still waiting for a valid reason other than inappropriate advertising and self-congratulation - maybe there wouldnt be so much uncivility going on? all i see is worldtraveller bleating about how the world is against him while consistently failing to engage in the debate about how "this featured article was once a good article!!!" helps wikipedia in any way shape or form.

furthermore resorting to unilaterally deleting my comments ofrom talkpages. e.g. this edit which is clearly vandalism is grounds for censure. Zzzzz 21:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Proof, if proof were needed, that Zzzzz is not interested in productive discussion, is that although I have not even been arguing in favour of what he's so worked up about, he's assuming I have so that he can attack my motives. Worldtraveller 22:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Help with impersonator
Could someone do something about who is impersonating. Thanks. --Telex 22:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done by Deskana. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User:HereToHelp
please see the comments made by the above user here on the community portal talk page Wikipedia_talk:Community_Portal. see section "order of GAC and CTC". it appears he is abusing admin privileges in order to win a content dispute, with little or no justification to do so. this s a repeat offence: last time he broke 3RR and received a block from User:William M. Connolley. he appears to have not learnt his lesson. also please see his edits on the community portal itself: especially the edit summary on this one  which appears highly odd behaviour for an admin? Zzzzz 01:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Once wrong doesn't mean always wrong. This sound mainly like sour grapes on your part. --InShaneee 01:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Punishment
Can any admin, acting alone, issue sanctions (official warnings), or dismissals (blocking), or even executions (permanent blocking) to any user with whom he or she disagrees? Is this done fairly? Is this also the right forum in which to ask this question? Thank you. Wallie 13:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are certain things that are clearly outlined by policy that allow an individual decision on blocking. Warnings are a thing anyone can do, administrator or not, although they're worth only as much as the person issuing them is.  Permanent blocks can be issued by an individual only in very, very well defined cases, and each of those requires acquiescence by the general community.  None of these can be initiated simply for disagreement.  Disagreement triggers nothing.  All of these require certain actions, not opinions, except for blocking under the naming policy (User:Booger sorts of things, where the block is when the user picks an inappropriate user name).  Otherwise, a Request for Comment (RfC) needs to take place on content disputes, a Request for Mediation on personality disputes or disruption disputes, and then actual blocks for life and limitations on editing priviledges come only from the Arbitration Committee.  Geogre 13:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well there are cases when admins can block from life that don't need the ArbCom to rule (Community bans, vandal only accounts etc.) I agree that admins cannot block only for disagreeing, but without seeing the example you are thinking of (assuming you have something in mind) then I can't really give a full comment to this. Petros471 13:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no provision for "punishment" of any sort in Wikipedia policy or practice. The purpose of blocks, bans, page protection, and other such administrative procedures is to prevent specific harms to the project. It is never acceptable to use such means to "punish" an individual for perceived moral or personal slights. Admins are servants of the project, empowered to use certain technical means to protect it and to clean up after vandals and other problems. They are neither police nor judges, and do not have the power to punish anyone. --FOo 00:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If that is so, then why are people blocked for violating 3-rr hours and hours after the disagreements have ended? The dispute is long over, no editing is being done, and yet the admins issue blocks, sometimes long ones. - Drogo Underburrow 13:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In my experience, they generally don't, although it does happen occasionally. If you have violated 3RR, and haven't been blocked within twelve hours, you probably won't be blocked. Reports of 3RR from the day before (or earlier) are not looked on kindly. AnnH <b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b> 15:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Amibidhrohi, reported for 3-rr 23:33, 9 May 2006, punished over 15 hours later, at 15:09, 10 May 2006 blocked for 3 days for being a repeat offender. (The fact that blocks are longer for repeat offenders is punishing them for crimes). Deiaemeth 09:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC) gets blocked by admin at  20:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC), ten hours later; How can blocking someone ten hours after editing has stopped be anything other than punishment? There is more, but its just repetition, I've made my point. Seems some of 3-RR enforcement is to stop immediate problems, but most is after the fact punishment. Drogo Underburrow 15:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the above, see Blocking_policy and Administrators. --Aquillion 07:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It may happen, but it doesn't happen often (and shouldn't). Regarding Amibidhrohi, the maximum block allowed for 3RR is 24 hours, so something's odd there.  I suspect the blocking admins were thinking in terms 3RR as a form of disruption rather than per se.  Without having looked at the history, it seems that his/her disruption went on for a substantial length of time.  HenryFlower 15:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is, it's outside of the job of administrators to contemplate how or whether to "punish" people. Acts of punishment presume the existence of authority over others, which Wikipedia administrators do not possess. They hold only increased technical power over certain aspects of the Wikipedia computer system -- not juridical authority over editors.

Acts such as blocking editors need to be justified on the basis of preventing specific harm to the project, not on any basis such as what a person deserves (revenge), what they need to convince them of the wrongness of their ways (reform) or what would discourage others from offending (deterrence). --FOo 03:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Locke Cole's userpage
's userpage has frequently been subject to deletion, under Right to vanish. However, Locke has so far failed to perform the second part of the "how to exercise one's right to vanish from an online community" procedure, to whit, actually vanishing. Earlier this evening I restored his userpage and talkpage because, as I understand it, one cannot assert the right to vanish but continue to edit. I think Locke has to decide whether he wants to remain on Wikipedia or not. However, my restoration was quickly reverted (oh, no! Spectre of a wheel war!!  What shall we do?????). Could we come to a decision on precisely how Locke Cole's userspace is to be treated, please? This indecision is getting tiresome. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The "right to vanish" isn't a process that has to be followed exactly in order to gain the "privilege" of having one's user page deleted. He's fully entitled to have his user page deleted whether or not he ceases to edit.  If he wants the page deleted, delete it and leave it be.  Whether or not he continues to edit is entirely up to him. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it appropriate for a user to request deletion of his talkpage to get rid of unsightly (but quite appropriate) warnings, ArbCom notices, etc.? That's what appears to be happening here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was about to add the same thing. Locke Cole has an outstanding ArbCom case and his talk page archives show all sorts of warnings and disputes which appear to me to be relevant.  We tick people off for deleting warnings from their talk pages, but in this case it appears that a user has been able to eliminate his entire talk page history with the blessing of an administrator, while continuing to be an active editor.  I'd feel slightly differently if he was just editing stuff related to the ArbCom case prior to giving up and disappearing, but that doesn't seem to be the case.  --ajn (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally don't see why we make such a big deal about removing warnings from user pages, and think we need to stop making such a big deal about it as it's mean to newbies and generally not a friendly practice. And I think at this point everyone knows what they need to know about Locke Cole.  IMO, we should not rely on user talk pages as a history of conflict for a user.  Perhaps we need an administrative history page for a user that is only visible to admins? Kelly Martin (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * An administrative history page for users is an excellent idea because the worst users, the ones most likely to attract admin attention, are the quickest to remove warnings. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there is a balance and common sense to be applied, immediate removal of warnings tends to suggest (and in some cases certainly is) attempting to hide the warning, so a subsequent warner may be unaware of the previous warning. On the other hand forcing retention of warnings forever seems to serve no purpose. --pgk( talk ) 16:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't make a big deal of it myself, and I agree that after a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, people ought to be able to remove anything they like from their talk page (although this goes against the guideline that you don't own 'your' talk page). However, Vandalism says "Removing warnings for vandalism or other issues from one's talk page may also be considered vandalism."  That's not a dead or obscure piece of policy - I've seen a few other admins quoting it at transgressors in the last week.  If there's consensus to do away with it, fine, but we ought to do away with it properly.  I also find it odd, to say the least, that someone who is halfway through an ArbCom case can announce he's leaving the project (while plainly not leaving the project) and have his user and talk pages deleted.  Again, if there's consensus that people should be allowed to request deletion of "their" talk page, there ought to be a process to do it without having to dishonestly claim that they are clearing off.  --ajn (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kelly. Locke Cole should be free to have his userpage in a deleted state. How he handles his talk page is also pretty much up to him and there's no need to make a big deal about removing warnings. Haukur 15:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with this. A user who has been frequently involved in runins with policy, and has been frequently warned, shouldn't delete those warnings from their Talk page.  If an uninvolved admin encounters bad behavior and goes to their Talk page and sees that they have been warned previously, then they can just issue a block.  But if those warnings are gone, the uninvolved admin would think that the bad behavior is a first-time occurrence, and would just issue a warning.  This could happen over and over again.  User:Zoe|(talk) 20:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * User pages may be deleted at any time. User talk pages should not be deleted, and his talk page should be restored. User subpages may be deleted at the user's request. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In particular, a user's talk page is primarily made up of edits by other users that the user in question should not have control over deletion. These should not be removed from the contributions of other editors. This deletion does not satisfy any criterion for speedy deletion, nor is it an obvioulsy appropriate action. I intend to undelete the talk page. If deletion is desired, it should be requested at Miscellany for deletion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As an aside, it should be pointed out that Right to vanish just talks about removing personal information; there's nothing in there that makes an argument for a user having their user talk page hard-deleted wholesale, other users' comments included. --Aquillion 07:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The talk page should be blanked if the user wants to disappear. If Locke Cole wants his userpage gone, it should be okay, but the arbcom notices, etc. have to go somewhere -- and in this case, the talk page makes sense. So if Locke wants his userpage gone, he has to keep the arbcom notices on his talk. At least, that's how I think. Johnleemk | Talk 08:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there's also an important distinction to be drawn here between blanking the talk page, and deleting it. I don't have a problem with Locke myself, but he's almost certain to be banned for a month as the outcome of the ArbCom case.  If he really is going to treat that ban as the end of his time here, I don't have a particular problem with deleting his personal information as per Right to vanish.  If he's going to come back in a month's time and resume where he left off, then his talk page history needs to be around so that anyone he comes into conflict with, not just admins, can see it.  --ajn (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I consider the above discussion sufficient justification and will restore the deleted talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Locke's response
I love this. I love the assumption of bad faith by ; which warnings were I trying to avoid Mark? The warnings given out by the troll ? The single ArbCom notice (which was long since archived)? I love the assumption of bad faith by ; I ask the same of you as I did of Mark; which warnings? The ones from the troll? You can't be serious. Any serious warnings (which were few and far between; most non-cabalers seem to think I do good things here) are very very old and stale. If someone is using them as an excuse to block me, they'd be acting punitively, not preventively.

As for, it's amazing to me that you can twist what is an obvious indicator of support of my talk pages deletion as an excuse to undelete the page. Yes, I'm treating the one month ban as my cue to leave; it's clear to me that if things are this skewed, there's no hope for Wikipedia. It'll need to be forked to something where there's no cabal, and certainly nothing resembling the ArbCom we have here (love the fact that even during the proposed decision/voting phase only two arbitrators have taken time to respond to questions (one of them less than helpfully); tip to wannabe arbitrators: don't run for the job if your intent is only to rubber-stamp other peoples proposals).

FYI: When I've had it deleted in the (recent) past, I've usually come back at the behest of someone else via e-mail or a talk page message (or had the page undeleted when someone complained about the red link). From now on I'll use better judgement and simply ignore such messages or requests. In any event, if I ever return, I'll make certain to have my various pages undeleted, but for now, please respect my wishes and leave the page deleted. Please stop harassing me simply because I respond to a few final comments prior to the block being imposed. Please do assume good faith (you know, like you're supposed to). Thanks heaps, now please leave me the fuck alone. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask all here to kindly respect Locke's decision to quit (Which I hope he rethinks and comes back once that harsh punitive one month ban is over). And just for the records (if anybody should care): he is banned by ArbCom for a month for "stalking" someone who was found to have caused disruption (in the exact same ArbCom case and a prior case). You might want to rethink for a second how that may feel on Locke's side. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, --Ligulem 08:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Mbw15
I've permablocked, who has been leaving weird "I'm not WoW" messages on a fairly random selection of talk pages (, . It's probably the hotrocks vandal (who's been hanging around all morning, trying, amongst other things, to get his myriad of socks unblocked). A neverending source of weird trollery, this chap. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * One of the sockpuppets emailed me pleading me to unblock him saying that it is a school IP. The same IP, however, made this post User_talk:Kungfuadam to my talk page.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that I looked up the IP 66.25.132.168 and found out it's not even a school IP. It is a home Roadrunner Internet account, which means it is not a school.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Lou Franklin
User:Lou franklin, after having an arbitration case against him which resulted in his being banned from Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, began posting a countdown on his user page, which he referred to as "plan B" (plan A was, apparently, harrassing the editors on Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality until he got banned from the article). After several requests for information regarding just what, exactly, he was counting down to, he divulged the information in an email to me, which follows in its entirety:


 * Seth,


 * I have tried everything possible within the Wikipedia community's rules to clean up the article. That has not been allowed and, as you know, I have not been treated fairly by any stretch of the imagination.


 * That's not a big deal, but the underlying problem is that you have an encyclopedia article that uses the word "cocksucker" and unnecessarily features nudity. That would be fine if the audience were all adults, but that is not the case.  I know that children are reading that article.  I was blocked by an admin who was 14 years old.  That kid shouldn't even be reading that article (let alone making administrative judgments about it).


 * Apparently very few of the editors care about corrupting the morals of children, but I care. I care a lot.  Think back to when you were 14.  Do you have a 14 year old nephew or niece?  It is very wrong to expose 14 year old kids to that kind of indecency.  And in the case of this article, the indecency is not even relevant to the topic.


 * I have gone through all of Wikipedia's bureaucratic hoops and raised a red flag to people at the very highest levels within the Wikipedia community. I have no more options within the Wikipedia framework.  I have been given no choice but to work outside Wikipedia's structure.


 * So far there are four events planned starting on August 4th. All are all very legal and non-violent.  I don't want to ruin the surprise for all of them, but I want to get your opinion about one of them.


 * Check out http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. It also starts on August 4th.  There is an anti-gay group that has acquired somewhat of a reputation for their ability to get media coverage to their protests.  This group has read the article and is aware of my efforts and is understandably concerned about the lack of fairness and neutrality displayed here.  They have not committed for certain, so I don't want to mention the group's name in case it doesn't happen, but they may protest the Wikipedia event.


 * I am understandably concerned about the article and my treatment, but I have reservations about getting this group involved. These people are truly insane.  And I have nothing against gay people, I just want an article that is not obscene and maintains some semblance of neutrality.  But, on the other hand, I absolutely will not be the one who allowed kids to read "cocksucker" and see that illustration in the article.  And there doesn’t seem to be another way to work this out.


 * What do you think the odds are that Wikipedia will do the right thing and either delete the article or fix it without a big scene? I have to give this group some lead time and I worry that once I set this up I may not be able to get the Jeannie back into the bottle.


 * I would like your opinion about that, and you also promised to answer my questions now.

I'm not sure how seriously I take him here, but passing this information on for community comment seemed like a good idea. -Smahoney 21:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't find anything particularly troublesome there, and I certainly don't think he's going to find many supporters for the proposition that It is very wrong to expose 14 year old kids to that kind of indecency; I can't think of anything on Wikipedia the reading of which I wouldn't permit (or even encourage) by any 10-year-old whom I know, let alone any 14-year-old. Joe 22:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether he will find support or not doesn't really matter. What matters is that he's seeking outside support or claims to be seeking outside support to pressure wikipedia into caving in to his demands and enforcing his pov on the article. That should definitely be taken seriously, and it should be taken care of. Aecis AppleknockerFlophouse 22:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine he'll find anyone to protest Wikipedia over this, but that leaves the other three of his four events. At any rate, this shows he's not in the least bit interested in following the terms of Arbcom and staying away from Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really think its our business to be concerned about what he will or will not do outside of Wikipedia (so long as no one is harmed by it), but I feel that perhaps he really doesn't get it - I mean, the idea that Wikipedians can or should be subject to political pressure by non-editors, if adopted, undermines the whole project. -Smahoney 22:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Aecis for the reasons expressed by Seth and further in view of my general disapproval of our looking at a user's extra-Wiki activities in ascertaining whether he/she should be blocked/banned/otherwise regulated. My point with respect to finding support was more, I suppose, of an inducement toward Lou's carrying out Plan B; notwithstanding that Seth is correct that the project isn't likely to compromise principles such as WP:NPOV in view of a WikiMania protest, I sought to suggest that it was unlikely Lou'd find many people to protest in any event (I suppose I may be incorrect there; at the very least, I don't think Lou's  position would ever win the support of most editors here, irrespective of his outside agitiation).  Joe 23:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, even though I trust Seth and I would hope that the community trusts my judgement, I would also oppose any block based on a single claim of an email received.
 * I do, however, think that this is relevant background, especially as Lou has requested mentorship - see User talk:Lou franklin. (I hope I'm not the only one who thought "Who wants to mentor me?" sounded like some sort of game show. Would you like to go 3RR, Ask the Arbcom, or Phone a Sockpuppet?) --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL at Plan A. I can't wait to see what Plan B is gonna be. -- Cyde Weys 22:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1/4 of plan B is hedged around in the email above. -Smahoney 22:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say that Plan C involves a atomic death ray, a vandalism bot that gives every page rainboxen, and a large box of milk duds. -- Av ill  ia  00:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That evidence does not count, how can you prove that Lou sent you that email? Anyways it is not very nice to publish personal communications even if they are genuine. Lapinmies 22:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This sort of objection is no doubt why he only shared that info via email. Nonetheless, I think its worth consideration.  -Smahoney 22:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I trust Seth, and the content of the email is Lou through and through. I also encouraged Seth to post this email after he forwarded it to me on my request. It wasn't like Seth even asked Lou to email him in confidence - he said "what is plan B?" and Lou said "I'll email you" rather than replying on his talk page (SM LF). Given that, I felt that posting the email was the right thing to do. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, for what it is worth. If Lou wants to label himself as anti-gay by associating himself with those groups, his choice. If he even has the faintest hope it will get him somewhere, let him dreaming. There have been much more serious fights (think Muhammad Cartoons for example) fought out here, so I do not see a big issue comming up. The worst thing that could happen is that the conservative media gets a confirmation that wikipedia does not fall within their approved moral standards. Big deal. Not! Kim van der Linde at venus 23:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the worst thing that could happen is that some groups get the idea that the way to get things changed around here is to apply political pressure. But yeah, I don't see this as anything serious either, more as a suggestion that Lou still doesn't get it.  -Smahoney 23:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We have been trolled. Have a nice day.  Either Lou's threat is a bluff, in which case it should be ignored, or it is a very weak threat &mdash; which should be ignored.


 * Lou is welcome to edit within the bounds of the restrictions imposed by ArbCom. Based on his performance to date, I suspect he will fail at this, but until he does I strongly recommend not giving him the attention that he seems to be so desperate to get.  Any course of action beyond enforcing the terms of his parole and continuing to edit as normal would seem to suggest that we can be successfully trolled and bullied.


 * Oh, and if scraggly band of homophobic nutjobs do picket Wikimania, we should be pleased&mdash;it will provide lots of material for Wikinews. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to guess what group he contacted. The most obvious group (given that even Lou think they are "insane") is that of Fred Phelps which could be amusing. More seriously, while we don't normally care about what happens outside Wikipedia, this indicates 1) an unwillingness to abid by Arb Com 2) A generally disruptive attitude. I'm also somewhat worried about what the other three planned events are. Even making this sort of threat seems to me to be close to exhausting the community patience, and if any of his threatened/hinted at actions do occur, I would support a very long, if not indefinite block. JoshuaZ 02:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * He's currently on personal attack parole, and he's used up one of his five strikes already. (He's currently on a one-week block.)  Further, he's got a three-strike parole that restricts his editing of the articles and talk pages related to Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, which is where he was involved in the most conflict.  I understand he's already burned his first strike there.
 * Either he shapes up really soon, or he's going to be blocked for a year anyway. About the only way he can cause trouble is through his talk page.  If we refuse to be trolled there – though remember, the personal attack parole also applies on that page – then he really doesn't have an avenue to make a nuisance of himself on-wiki.  We can ignore him until he shapes up or self-destructs; I don't think a community ban is necessary yet. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I too figured the group to be one of the several with which Phelps is associated; it'll be interesting (don't feed the trolls) altogether uninteresting to see who the group are (we can safely rule out the GNAA, though, no?). Joe 06:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet another Rms125a sockpuppet
is a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user (evidence: ). Can an admin block this sockpuppet please? Thanks. Demiurge 22:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely by User:Jtdirl - Ali-oops<sup style="color:darkred;">&#9997; 10:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Crazyharp81602
user added a bunch of "acknowledgement" sections listing himself. While I have reverted all of them, I am not sure how to approach him about it and WP:OWN. Circeus 03:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I left a note on his talk page. JoshuaZ 03:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That was a much simpler wording than what I'd probably have ended using. Circeus 04:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user Rms125a@hotmail.com evading block
Indefinitely blocked user is evading his block as  (proof: ). Can an administrator block this IP please? Thanks! Demiurge 09:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. HenryFlower 10:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Robert is still involved in massive revert-warring at this IP address. See . I don't see anything in the block log - Ali-oops<sup style="color:darkred;">&#9997; 10:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help, but it seems you reblocked Rms125a@hotmail.com for 48 hours (effectively undoing his indefinite block) rather than blocking the IP address. Putting a 48 hour block on, then unblocking Rms125a@hotmail.com so you can block the username indefinitely again should fix things. Thanks again! Demiurge 10:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops! I think I've got it right this time. HenryFlower 10:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Henry - fixed! And thanks for the revert on my talk page :) - Ali-oops<sup style="color:darkred;">&#9997; 10:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Ectoplasmer
User:Ectoplasmer Has Vandalised Boom Boom Boom Boom and Soul of the Duelist since his third warning on the 11th of May (see User_talk:Ectoplasmer) --KaiAdin 10:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I gave him a test4 - it works surprisingly often. In future, reports of simple vandalism should go on WP:AIV. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Mackensen and TFD for User:UBX/blogger
I'm concerned about Mackensen's premature closing of disscussions at. Not only did the closing action not reflect the building consensus (which, so far was to keep the template. as the discussion was on the template for deleation page, not a 'content for deletion' page), but the discussion was closed after only about 10 hrs. I would like to see the template restored and the debate reopened so that TFD can run its course. Mike McGregor (Can) 11:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that this was brought here before politely asking me to undelete–which I did. Given that there's currently a new policy discussion underway (WP:MACK), I'm halting all further administrative action on my part regarding userboxes. I encourage Mike to take a gander at the proposal. Mackensen (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * could you also reopen the discussion at TfD please? Mike McGregor (Can) 11:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously this is related to the item immediately above. Mackensen and Cyde have been both nominating and closing userbox debates (which isn't process) prior to usual expiry (which isn't process) and with delete actions regardless of the consensus (which definitely isn't process). As to bringing this here 'first'... there was a discussion on the TfD talk page that was quickly growing heated between the 'follow procedure' and 'admin opinions count more' (yes, someone actually said that) crowds. Bringing the growing problem here was not the 'first' thing done. --CBDunkerson 11:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't part of said discussion. Please note that the Pi boxes, at least, are on deletion review already (where they belong). Please also note that admins have always been expected to exercise their own good judgement. Bots can count votes. Mackensen (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good luck to bots when some votes were rather implicit or even as original as peeK in a discussion on a userbox with reversed text. Friendly Neighbour 12:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Then we'll make better bots ;). Anyways, I've apologized elsewhere for apparently misleading people; I can only say that I honestly tried to make the best judgement call I could in the interests of the most people here. If you've been offended, I apologize for that. To that end, I've crafted a new policy proposal which is, at the moment, attracting support from all sides. It can be found here: WP:MACK. Mackensen (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You fail to mention that the contents of Wikipedia talk:Mackensen's Proposal show both support and opposition, not merely support. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 13:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not a failure on my part. My point was that the proposal was garnering support from both sides--which it is. There is opposition yes, but there's also support. The big thing is that I'm trying to get people to talk. Talking is good. Mackensen (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this issue, I don't care one whit positively or negatively about user boxes, but I do care about consensus, and I would like to ask people to try and work cooperatively and in the spirit of consensus. I will assume good faith and agree that Mackensen was trying come up with a position that could "garner support" from both sides, but that apparently was not how it was seen. Perhaps in situations like this where a compromise position does not have obvious broad support, the best tactic would be for the closing admin to keep the discussion going and ask if there is consensus with the emerging position, while keeping the debate open for another week. I have seen this work very successfully in other situations. There is no need to rush to a conclusion. -- Samuel Wantman 18:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)