Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive83

Rollback abuse

I seek advice on the disruptive behaviour of User:Piotrus who, as far as I can recall, never uses rollback for reverting vandalism, but reserves the button for content disputes only. I repeatedly demonstrated to him the impropriety of his behaviour and quoted the appropriate passage from WP:RV: Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint. Reverting a good-faith edit may send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanatory edit summary." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor; do not abuse it. If you use the rollback feature other than against vandalism or for reverting yourself, be sure to explain on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted. Yet he recently abused the rollback again and, despite my remonstrances, yet again. I wonder how this sort of behaviour can remain unpunished. Probably a short block is needed to stop his disruptive activities. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to let another admin rule on this one. But. Just wanted to say that there is no *policy* per say against using rollback in the way that he is using it. What you quoted isn't a policy. So I'm not sure it's blockable. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't say that your reply is very helpful. As his actions clearly abuse admin tools, should I seek defrocking, as the guy also practises wheel warring, copyvios, etc, or should I request for comment and arbitration, as the standard proceedings are? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed poor Wikietiquette to use admin rollback for non-vandalism reverts. However, equally, looking at the edit history of that article I see you making uncivil edit summaries like "please stop reintroducing your sloppy edits, deficient spellings en masse" and "rm rant about Poles' civilisatory mission among those barbarian ruskies... yawn". Be nice to each other and move along. — Matt Crypto 12:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) is a frequent abuser of WP:CIVIL (talking about uncivil edit summaries, check this out), as has been pointed out in his RfC. I think I have full right to rollback those of his edits which I deem as vandalism (which, on the bright side, form only a small percantage of his contribs).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist is pasting links to his manifesto to new users again

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] etc. <sigh> --Gmaxwell 05:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, the agreement at his RFAR was that he could use it in his sig, and there was never a ruling passed that he couldn't use the normal welcome templates. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:47 UTC (2006-03-18)

Did you read the edit summaries of those five welcomes? It's still a grossly inappropriate 'welcome' however you look at it. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 15:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Read his talkpage. Karmafist is just gaming the system as of late. -Zero^Talk 15:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This is going too far, we can wikilawyer about sigs, or we can say that recruiting newbies to a partisan manifesto (whatever its merits) before they've had time to work out wikipedia for themselves is unacceptable however it is done. The arbcom case should be reopened and Karmafist given once last chance to behave, before we ban him for good. --Doc ^ask? 16:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The arbitration case is still proceeding. Two arbitrators have voted to close, but another two have voted to keep it open. The case would need four net votes to close and has 0 (2 supports - 2 opposes). --Tony Sidaway 16:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I should update that, I suppose. One supporting arbitrator has withdrawn his support, and another arbitrator has voted oppose. So depending on whether or not you count Sam Korn's withdrawn vote as an oppose, it's either 3-1 or 4-1 against closing the Karmafist case. --Tony Sidaway 05:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The edit summaries on those welcomes are unacceptable; it would appear that Karmafist has abused the assumption of good faith that led me to propose closing the case. I've told him my thoughts on this, and I hope he takes the opportunity to explain himself and proceed in a different manner; if not, well, I've given him a lot of chances now. -- SCZenz 17:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Karmafist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours due to his continuing disruption. He already has an ongoing arbitration and he's going totally out of bounds now. He needs some time to cool down. --Cyde Weys 19:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this block as being particularly productive, and it isn't supported by the blocking policy. I have unblocked Karmafist. —Guanaco 20:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

And if the disruptiveness continues, what then? --Cyde Weys 21:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no, Guanaco unblocking somebody without consensus? Who would have thought that that would ever happen? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you're still whining about my actions in dealing with Michael. —Guanaco 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reblocked him for 24. In addition to the above he has resorted to calling a fellow admin a 'thug' [6] and a 'vandal' [7]. He just keeps pushign it, well enough. --Doc ^ask? 21:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this re-block. The welcome edit summaries are not the only issues here. Rx StrangeLove 21:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone who professes to want to clean up wikipedia, can't go arround calling other admins 'thugs'. He of all peiople should know better. --Doc ^ask? 21:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Some admins on Wikipedia act like thugs; the term is often appropriate. Of course, it generally should be avoided (NPA). —Guanaco 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My two cents on all this. First of all, Guanaco (and everyone else) should know that blocks for disruption, with administrative consensus, are supported by blocking policy. I should note, though, that Karmafist did explain and apologize for the edit summaries at the top of this section. I would not have done this block myself, but Karmafist is either playing games with us or is very angry, and in either case some time to cool down might improve the situation. -- SCZenz 21:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I talked with him on IRC about this. I think the main problem is that he's very angry and doesn't have an outlet, so he makes provocative comments in edit summaries. I told him that if he's having a bad day, it's best to take it off-wiki and conform with WP:CIVIL. Sometimes it's just best to write a bunch of insults in a text editor, and then trash the file. Better to release it all in private than let it bottle up and then escape onto the wiki. Johnleemk | Talk 21:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. You should put that into whichever is the relevant guideline/be-nice page. -Splash^talk 00:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with the new block, but 24 hours is unusually long for mild personal attacks and disruption by an established contributor. —Guanaco 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

24 hours is not too long of a block for disruption, especially when hundreds of innocent newbies are being caught in the crossfire of some silly wikipolitic war. --Cyde Weys 00:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually an 'estabilished contributor' should know better, and the behaviour is not issolated but compounding earlier disruption and misue of edit summaries. Actually, I think 24 hrs is extremely light, and certainly should not be shortened. --Doc ^ask? 00:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is light, but blocking is not intended to be used as a punishment. —Guanaco 00:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well in this case it's being used to prevent him from disruptive welcoming after he was repeatedly asked not to do so over a period of weeks. If he continues after the block expires he will merely earn himself a longer block. --Cyde Weys 02:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the block was probably a very good idea in this case and I support it. My interpretation of Karmafist's recent statements is that he is intentionally and maliciously setting out to break Wikipedia's dispute resolution system. If I'm right and we don't block as and when appropriate, we're sending him the wrong signals. --Tony Sidaway 05:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Raul654, the proposer and last remaining supporter of the motion to close, has withdrawn it, saying: "I think it's clear from these recent edits he made [8] [9][10][11][12] (look at the edit summaries) that he's gaming the system. I withdraw the motion." --Tony Sidaway 07:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That's furthur supported by this edit, which states : As I understand it, Karmafist is banned from welcoming people with anything other than the standard template. He may not include links to personal advocacy pages or use political language in his welcome message, signature, or edit summary. "Welcoming" shall be interpreted broadly by admins. Karmafist is also placed on civility parole. Admins may block Karmafist for up to one week should he violate any of these remedies. After five such blocks, the maximum length of such a block shall be increased to one year. Johnleemk | Talk 12:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC). -Zero^Talk 16:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That isn't passed yet. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of that. I simply considered it relevant. -Zero^Talk 17:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :-) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize. You're okay. :) -Zero^Talk 20:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It definitely is relevant that it hasn't yet passed. The interpretation given by Johnleemk, as clerk, and quoted above by Zero, will not apply unless and until the proposed remedies are passed and the case is closed. Any remedies applying at that time will be announced on WP:AN. --Tony Sidaway 13:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Its passed now. It is definitely relevant that it is the reached desision and as such is fully valid. The case is now closed and the beforementioned statement by Johnleemk is no longer proposed. -Zero^Talk 21:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit war at Abortion

I think some admin attention, perhaps to remind edit warriors not to disrupt, may be in order. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 08:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the editors has passed the 3RR point. AvB ÷ talk 09:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Pro-Lick, a recently registered editor whose activity is essentially limited to fighting over the abortion article, seems to have some ideas about organizing talk pages in certain ways and removing comments of other editors that don't fit his scheme. I warned him about that, as did another editor, and he removed most of our comments from his talk page in reply, but he hasn't removed anything else at Talk:Abortion. However, he's begun making personal attacks, so I warned him about that as well. I'd appreciate it if another admin or two could keep an eye out, and maybe step in if necessary, so that there are voices other than mine telling him just how we don't operate here. I think he thinks I disagree with him politically, which is funny because I think I don't. Maybe a liberal more flaming than I could have a word with him. Anyway, thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Echoing GTBacchus. User:Pro-Lick needs a reality check. Currently s/he keeps changing the consensus introduction of the article example. Admin intervention would be greatly appreciated. AvB ÷ talk 14:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Northmeister

User:Northmeister has been making reverts on my reverts of other edits for the sole reason of trying to get me not to make reverts on his articles. He keeps on trying to promote the American System (economics) article by putting it into articles (a system advocated by Larochites). He tried to link it to the Pat Buchanan article and I reverted it out. The user then has gone to article in which I contribute to revert my reverts.

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]
5. [17]

He keeps on trying to promote this system by placing its internal link in other articles as well.

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]
5. [22]
6. [23]

And when someone reverts it he claims "vandalism", "trolling", or "stalking".

Another poster, User:Will Beback asked him to stop in his talk page and he replied by telling the poster "you can go to hell" [24]. I asked him to "remember to be civil" and he replied in a similar fashion telling me to "go to hell". [25]--Jersey Devil 01:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Northmeister for forty-eight hours for incivility and disruption. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.--Jersey Devil 02:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Northmeister (talk · contribs) thinks my block is unfair and that I am biased against him. I invite others to review my block and lift it if they think it's unwarranted. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not get a fair chance to state my case and was blocked quickly that is why I protest. User Jersey Devil now uses this to smear me when he can, I consider this harassment. He also continues to call my edits "LaRouche" when they are not. Here is my response for the record: --->Jersey Devil did not like the fact that I deleted what I considered harmful commentary on the Gatekeeper deletion vote page (AfD). SEE HERE. So he responded by going to my articles at Wealth of Nations, and Dirigisme among others and reverting (REVENGE REVERTS he calls them) them without commentary on the talk page. I responded by looking into his edit history. I saw that he was engaged in the same thing at other pages. So I took a stand on something I knew about to stop this - Democracy Now! (I am a progressive Democrat afterall). I did this to give User:Radical Mallard a chance to respond to his reverts without discussion. We came to an agreement that it was not helpful to revert others material without discussing it (unless it is an anonymous user or obvious vandalism) and he apologized for his conduct. Then a few days later he again reverted Dirigisme without discussion (while a discussion was in process with another user Will Beback). I took offense first, because he broke our cordial agreement to not revert without first discussing why and second because after I reverted back he reverted again, until I could revert no more (each time he did not list a reason on the talk page). He continues as above to insinuate I am a LaRouche supporter when I am not. This is the same thing Will Beback has done to me since I arrived over disputes at the American System page. I have bent over backwards for them with citations and references and they continue to call me this name. I even wrote a brief about myself to indicate a little about me and where I am from and sent Wikimedia my real name to be on record. That is a little background to balance the above statement. PS. My Buchanan edit was actually accepted by Will Beback after he found out it was well founded himself by the way. --Northmeister 07:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Northmeister is a newcomer, unfamiliar with Wikipolitics, and has something of a temper. That being said, it is apparent to me that Jersey Devil and Will Beback were deliberately goading him, violating the spirit and the letter of WP:BITE. Will Beback in particular should be admonished, or possibly blocked, for violation of WP:NPA in calling Northmeister a "LaRouche supporter." Will knows very well that Northmeister is not a LaRouche supporter, but continues to taunt him with the term as an epithet (see [26]) and as an implicit threat: Northmeister is aware of the sanctions which may be applied to "LaRouche supporters." As far as I know, I am the only LaRouche supporter left at Wikipedia, since Cognition has apparently left. --HK 15:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No offense, HK, but your comments about who is and is not a LaRouche supporter are not definitive. Some of user:Northmeister's first edits were to re-instate text that you'd written and which had been deleted long ago.[27][28][29][30] Identifying someone's political biases is not an attack. On the other hand, writing that "THEY ARE TROLLS AND STALKERS" over and over may qualify.[31]. LaRouche editors are not banned from editing here, but LaRouche theories and resources have been deemed to be unreliable, and the ArbCom has concluded that they should not be included in articles, except those about him. Northmeister has engaged in edit warring over the inclusion of LaRouche concepts in unrelated articles, which may lead to a ban, according to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche. -Will Beback 17:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Will, your modus operandi when engaged in edit warring is simply to identify anything you don't like as a "LaRouche concept," even if it originated a century or more before LaRouche was born [32]. This tactic is dishonest enough when you use it against me, a self-acknowledged LaRouche supporter; it is downright reprehensible when you use it to bite a newcomer who is trying to edit in good faith. --HK 01:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Diyako

This user is creating a few problems on Wikipedia for this short celebration of Norouz:

1- He started by creating a new article from a revert with no real source to suggest the festival is any different [33]. - This created much problems with the page now being protected (and half broken talk links to another page and so on)

2- He then started abusive comments to push his POV e.g. "Calling Kurds as well as their culture and tradition to be Iranian is another insult made by Iranian and many other people." [34]

Note:

• a- The whole article Norouz and the Kurds is politically motivated: the pictures are from a political rally by [[Democratic Society Party]] as admitted by the photographer here.

• b- Kurds are atleast linguistically if not ethno-culturally Iranian (see Iranian people), as seen here and also here too.

To show that this user is not new to such 'anti-Iranian' behaviour see his (infact second) warning here by an admin, regarding calling Iranians 'farsi', again, after being warned that this could be offensive.

3- Even though it is obvious that there are some Kurds living in Iran (See Kurdistan Province (Iran)), where Norouz is public holiday (New year festival), and Persian is the official language of the country, user still pushes POV by saying: "The word Norouz has no meaning for Kurds" here, after many contributers are trying to compromise at Talk:Newroz#Compromise.3F.

4- If all this was not enough, he then nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norouz for deletion! a current event article which was fully cited and not disputed what so ever, just to push his POV even more and waste more time.

Conclusion: This user has made all these problems just so the Norouz articles would be left with disputes and other problems, wasting many users time who could be actually enjoying this festival instead of trying to protect the article. I invite all neutral admins and users to comment on this matter. Further evidence can be submitted if required. --Kash 02:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Dear administrators, please glance through our discussions in Norouz and Newroz talk page. I always tried to offer academic evidences for my discussions from Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Iranica and Department of Ancient Studies at Univ London. However User:Dyiako says: Look sina, Maybe you are young, I do not like playing and wasting my time Duscussing with you has bo result and wasting time. This is why I prefer to discuss the matter with others than you.. While we were discussig the pages, he nominated the pages for deletion without saying anything to us. He repeatedly made claims like "the boggus norouz please respect the Kurdish world" and also Norouz in the case of Kurds is boggus, and uncorrect, and to the Kurdish culture an insult with no source. Up to now he did not provide any academic sources for his claims. Please notice that the word is indeed in use in KURDISH media and also Persian, Tajik, Lor, Mazani, Gilak, Azeri ones. I have already provided sources for that. But it seems Diyako just do not want to accept the fact. I suggested to use a title like "Norouz celebrations among Kurds (Newroz)" but he keeps deleting it! No other editors agreed with him at the end of our discussions yesterday. --Sina Kardar10:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

User:ImpuMozhi has removed citations multiple times and put :{{unreferenced}}, in multiple sections.

This is vandalism [[35]], [[36]]. Dhruv singh 12:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like another content dispute for the most part, though the removal of citations is problematic. Someone else want to weigh in? --InShaneee 21:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I have worked with Mozhi before and I must say, I don't think he has ever vandalised. BTW are you a total n00b, or are you affiliated with that long list of socks recently permabanned? For details, see Talk:Rajput#Sockpuppets blocked and #revenge of the Rajputs' sock army. If you have a problem with Mozhi, then talk to him about it - you haven't even attempted to so far (under this account at least). I find Mozhi very co-operative and I'm sure he'd listen to you if you communicated your concerns to him. --Latinus 21:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

User KellyClarksonFan1 has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:KellyClarksonFan1 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 14:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the pagemove... vandalism, but the user has left the following message on his or her talkpage:

"My account was taken over while I left the terminal for 5 minutes. This wasn't meant to happen..."

What to make of it? The user has no significant contributions. — Mar. 21, '06 [14:25] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

It all smells a bit fishy to me. Apart from a few edits to Kelly Clarkson on the 16th March, the vandalism edits started today without any other good faith edits being made beforehand, only to be followed immediately by the user demanding to be unblocked. It just doesn't fit with the series of events I'd expect to happen with a compromised account. -- Francs2000 14:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That was my conclusion as well, you'll notice I didn't unblock. — Mar. 21, '06 [14:59] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Anyways see the user's talk page. I've tried to explain as plainly as possible why I'm not prepared to lift the block, but I openly admit to having the tact of a brick through your front window - perhaps someone else could phrase it better if the user asks any questions? -- Francs2000 15:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough. — Mar. 21, '06 [15:47] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

DarrenRay and Ben Cass and sockpuppets

Darren Ray is User:DarrenRay and User:AChan. He and Benjamin Cass are indeed different people, although they appear to have edited from each others' houses, both using their own accounts and their socks' accounts. Ben Cass (User:2006BC) has a string of his own socks.

If these guys aren't actually the exclusive operators of the phenomenon that the vandal-hunters have named "the Australian Politics Vandal" then they're the main operators. In addition, I'm now trying to work out what (if any) account Andrew Landeryou is using.

I've sent a fuller report to the AC. I also just blocked AChan as a sock indefinitely and DarrenRay for 48 hours for sockpuppet abuse to evade 3RR. Darren can, of course, still communicate with the AC via email. (You lucky people!)

And their obsession with small-time headkicking politics is remarkable. I got a query on my talk page from Ben Cass asking what my party affiliation is. WTF. I'm with the "we're here to write an encyclopedia, not play pitterpat with people using it for petty outside ambitions" party. Thanks ever so much - David Gerard 18:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

User:InShaneee

I would like to invite any neutral admin and user to look at this case:

InShaneee has threatened to block me, because I asked a user to comment on something he posted on another users talk page. He believes that this action is a ‘blatant’ personal-attack, ‘plain and simple’. here, and of course he has removed my comments on this user’s page using his admin tools.

The user in question is User:Aucaman, he is known for breaking many policies as reported in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aucaman.

InShaneee, an admin claiming to be neutral on the case has repeatedly given me and other Iranian contributors "personal attack" warnings. At first he was correct, I was knew to Wikipedia and did not know how to handle users such as User:Aucaman, however recently he has threatened to ban me, because I asked Aucaman to comment on this this where he called the founder of my country Cyrus of Persia, an illiterate murderer in Persian language.

InShanee assumed good faith on behalf of this user (apparently), however when I reported the case to him, he came and warned me that he is going to ban me soon.

I believe InShaneee wants to ban me for unfair reasons. I have only been active on Wikipedia as a contributor for less than a month and if you look at the request for comment section you will see what I have had to deal with. And now I am being threatened to be banned simply because I asked Aucaman to comment why he has said that about the founder of my country. This was of particular importance to me as he is repeatedly editing Iran-related articles and I believe such users who have anti-Iranian POV should not be allowed to do so (as it is creating a lot of hassle for the rest of the contributors to fix it all up again).

If I am wrong in assuming that inShanee is ‘ought to get me’ on this case, please let me know. Thanks. --Kash 23:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I must admit, the diffs provided by InShanee aren't what I'd call blatant attacks; they were a bit confrontational, but within the bounds of acceptability, and certainly not grounds for blocking. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment. Atleast I have some assurance now that I am not totally insane --Kash 23:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, good, I was just writing up my own summary to post here (as follows). I attempted to warn User:Kashk about harrassing other users (this is one of the many users involved in the Aucaman RfC and whatnot). He's been posting on Aucaman's page demanding an apology over something he said on an article talk page, and has been getting increasingly abusive about it ("What do you have to say for yourself?", "You should be ashamed", ect), while spamming other user's talk pages in an attempt to get him banned ("Do you think he is fit to edit?"). My warnings were met with nothing but more accusations against Aucaman and, more importantly, repeated mocking ("I almost laughed when I read this", "such amazingly good faith", "such amazingly fair admins"). I didn't want to take any further action then and there since the last comments were against me personally, but I would appreciate any other admins looking into this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by InShaneee (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 March 2006

Whoops, must have lost my sig in the copy/paste from my work page. --InShaneee 23:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee thanks for your comment here. First of all my object is ofcourse to your whole attitude! you call me asking about a user's comment 'harassment', yet you come and warn to block me for something which is obviously not personal attack! I thought an admin on Wikipedia would know the policies better than that!

Secondly ofcourse as you said yourself - people get angry and especially someone like me who has spent the last few weeks trying to make this user (Aucaman) come to his senses, you should appreciate that I would get a little angry and ask why he has done this. 'What do you have to say for yourself' is not what I call abusive. He had called the founder of my country, whom I respect a lot, an illeterate murderer. You assumed no good faith on my behalf, yet you assumed all the best on his! why is that? and as we both know, this is not the first time. You have done this to several other Iranian editors too.

Thirdly you did not submit this - I did, and I would like admins to look at it. I assume (and I think I have the right to on this case) that you would have probably banned me sooner or later if I had not got people to look in to it --Kash 23:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This issue is going to need some attention, because the entire thing is getting complicated. I've been a bit involved in this issue, reminding some of the editors involved to remain civil. In an already controversial article, Aucaman made a pretty blatantly incivil and harsh comment, which he has since acknowledged was a mistake. There are now a handful of editors demanding that he apologize to them and repeatedly bringing the incident up. These other editors are actually getting to a point where their demands are starting to be disruptive, and now admins are getting pulled into the conflict. Because the comment by Aucaman was made several days ago, there's not much administrators can do except tell him not to make more offensive comments, which I have, and to which he was amenable. All that administrators can do is enforce WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA so that they do not occur in the future. The editors who were angry about Aucaman's edits are now even angrier because it appears that we're siding with Aucaman, when really, we're just trying to start enforcing the policies in this situation. As the above comments indicate, some editors believe it is their role to get Aucaman to "come to his senses", when, of course, that's not their job. Compounding the issue, of course, is the actual encyclopedia article which it will take some cool heads with strong understandings of the related suject matter to get any sort of resolution to (and even then, I suspect that the page won't cool down too much). I don't have the expertise in the subject to weigh in, except to enforce the policies when they get stepped on or broken. In any case, long story short, I don't think InShaneee is "out to get" anybody, and the notion that InShaneee was gearing up to ban anybody (barring, of course, the type of gross policy violation that would get anybody banned) is just silly. It's just a very touchy issue that's going to need more sets of admin eyes on it before it can get resolved. JDoorjam Talk 23:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you JDoorjam. OK - I understand that it is not my or anyone else's job to bring him to his senses, correct. I agree and I apologize for mentioning that. I must admit I will be happy as long as admins to get involved in this issue, because some admins (and I am greatful) do acknoweldge that he is not helpful, which is great! however as seen for example in here no one wants to take the case on board properly. I mean Aucaman made this comment while trying to say that he is innocent at the same time on his RfC!

Also I would like to assume good faith on this case with InShaneee..but I have been threatened to be banned for 'personal attacks' which was clearly not the case here! atleast I'd appreciate it if admins (atleast a neutral one) could explain to me what he is warning me for using proper terms so I would not do it again. I am still learning. --Kash 00:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User again has harassed me here: [[37].

He has warned me about telling Diyako to stop his disruptive behaviour which I had reported here.

I am not sure what exactly I am supposed to do, I report a user for distruptive behaviour, then I tell him to stop, and an admin comes and tells me not to do that?!! --Kash 23:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Texas Editor

Split from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Socks_of_Shran/CantStandYa

• "Anon Texan"
• 66.98.130.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ="128"
• 66.98.130.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ="159"
• 66.98.130.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="204"
• 66.98.130.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ="224"
• 66.98.131.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="200"
• 67.15.76.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="110"
• 67.15.76.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="185"
• 67.15.76.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ="187"
• 67.15.76.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="188"
• 67.15.76.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) = "244"
• 67.15.76.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="232
• 67.15.76.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): Everyone's Internet, Houston ="242"
• 67.15.77.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ="161"
• 70.84.56.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ="165"
• 192.168.172.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): The Planet, Dallas = "172"
• 70.84.56.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): The Planet, Dallas = "56.185"
• 70.84.56.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): The Planet, Dallas = "166""
• 70.85.195.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): The Planet, Dallas ="239"
• 70.85.195.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): The Planet, Dallas = "138"
• 70.85.195.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ="225"
• 70.85.195.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ="230"
• 204.94.149.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 24.0.91.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): Comcast, Texas deprecated

• Involved articles
• John Kerry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)*, 138, 239, 166, 172, 185, 232, 188, 56.185, 110, 200, 204, 224, 165, 187, 167, 159, 244
• Hillary Rodham Clinton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 138, 242, 232, 56.185, 200, 204, 187, 159, 244
• Jay Rockefeller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 166, 172, 242, 188, 56.185, 204, 224, 244
• Movement to impeach George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)*, 138, 172, 232, 188, 185, 204, 165, 159, 244
• Ron Karenga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)* 185, 204, 224, 165, 187, 167, 230, 232, 225, 244
• Winter Soldier Investigation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 110, 204, 185, 188, 159
• Pat Tillman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 172, 188, 185, 204
• Killian documents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 239, 188, 232
• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Fred Bauder (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Fred Bauder|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 204, 159, 188

User:Stbalbach has put together a page linking a number of IPs to poor editing behavior, User:Stbalbach/anontexan. Included on that list is one IP strongly associated with Shran/CantStandYa, and there is some overlapping editing of obscure articles. Due to those factors I assumed they were the same person but I have come to realize that I was wrong. I had combined two cases which should be treated separately. While compiling that case I came across numerous transgresions in this re-separated case, which I think it merits independent treatment.

Perhaps User:Stbalbach can list the diffs, but I've seen instances of 3RR violations, several cases of fraudulently changing the IP of his signature, and POV disputes and edit warring with Jimbo Wales [38][39] and many other editors. There are complaints on his IP pages to which he's never responded. He refuses to get a username so I don't know the best way to proceed. -Will Beback 19:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok here are some examples:

• 3RR:The use of multiple anon IP's to get around the 3RR rule can be seen on March 10th of Movement to impeach George W Bush. It's difficult to diff them all here but a scan of the history page linked above shows it clearly from 70.84.56.172 and 66.98.130.204 on March 10th.

• Changing IP on sig: This user manually changed or deleted the IP number showing up in his sig on talk pages (note: the user claims it was being done "automatically" by his security software, but "with a slight delay" after posting). Here is an example diff of deleting the IP. example diff of changing the IP. There are many other examples on other pages as well.

• Refusing to talk on talk pages. When confronted with issues surrounding the use of anon IPs, and thus breach of good faith in edits, the user responded to the charge of lack of good faith as a personal insult and an reason to enter into edit warring:

"If you edit unacceptably to me, I will either revert or modify. If not, I won't. I've talked here in good faith and you answer with insults. Come what may, I will not repond to you again - unless and until you apologize." [40]

--Stbalbach 16:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

How about you and your cohorts stop reverting and sprotecting after every edit I make and instead dialog on the repsective talk pages? Except for a burst of pique the other day when you guys were lying about me and calling me shran, the content of my edits have been valid. Stop being such wiki-snobs and open your minds. anon... —This unsigned comment was added by 66.98.130.204 (talk • contribs) .

It is very difficult to "dialog" with someone who has no identity, or who alters his identity, who refuses to discuss, and who doesn't have a user talk page. Using multiple IPs does not grant you a waiver from our policies, including 3RR and NPOV. Regarding the Shran mixup, that was an honest mistake for which I have apologized. Now please make sure that you are familiar with our policies and guidelines. Further violations may result in range blocks or sprotects. -Will Beback 20:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• The Anon Texan certainly has been disruptive, is generally (but not completely) unwilling to engage on talk pages, and is unwilling to engage in consensus forming. He blanked a section of Killian documents for being "POV crap" and posted this on the talk page. " The section which was deleted has no citations and is nothing but original research -and it's POV too. Either clean it up or it's going to keep getting deleted. That section is nothing but uncited speculative conjecture. " The fact is I agree with him on the substance of the section, except that I proposed a rewrite in talk, waited for comments and consensus, and replaced the poor section with something better. The fact that he disagrees with a consensus that had been established on a contentious article does not give him carte blanche to disrespect the work of many before him by refusing to engage in even a token discussion and he is certainly more interested in edit warring than in working toward consensus.

However, I must also point out that as a result of antagonizing some editors, edits by the Anon Texan are being reverted even when they are reasonable. For example, Jonathunder (talk · contribs) reverted this edit even though it was a minor grammatical point that probably made a small improvement. (Unfortunately, the Texan had previously baited Jonathunder on his user sandbox here). On Pat Tillman, the Texan changed the comments of Tillman's brother at his memorial service from he's fucking dead to he's f--ing dead on the basis of published accounts here and here. He was reverted on the grounds that wikipedia is uncensored, and then the page was sprotected. The thing is, I checked Lexis/Nexis and can find no source that quotes Rich Tillman as using the actual word fucking at his brother's memorial service. Maybe all the news sources bowdlerized the quote, and maybe Rich Tillman bowdlerized himself. The point is a minor quibble but the Texan is technically correct in this case.

It seems that the Texan is more interested in provoking people than being productive, but do we really want to adopt a policy of reverting all edits on sight? Thatcher131 06:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My response to this editor was initially colored by the mistaken belief that it was Shran. Except for specific cases we should not revert any user's works on sight, without proper review. Howeverit is a fact that annoying, abusive editors get less assumption of good faith than average users. I can't speak for user:Jonathunder, but I do notice that his reverts occured before we cleared up the Shran/Texan confusion, so he may have been under the same mistaken belief as me. While we should not bite newcomers, the Texan is no newcomer. Other than range blocks or sprotecting articles I don't see a way of minimizing the disruption of an editor who won't confer with colleagues -Will Beback 06:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Kojco Bot blocked

This bot is deleting valid interwiki links. I am blocking it until its owner provides an explanation what it is doing. I have left a message on the owner's User page. (PS -- if he provides a reasonable explanation, I give permission to any admin to reverse my block.) -- llywrch 19:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This is KocjoBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've rolled back all his recent edits which removed an interwiki. This may have resulted in some broken interwikis being reinserted, but that's fine because....we have bots that go around taking them out! -Splash^talk 20:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

At the request of the owner, I have unblocked this account. (Crossing fingers.) -- llywrch 21:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Unreasonable accusations and deletion of talk page entries by User:Seraphim XI

On article Freemasonry User:SeraphimXI has now twice removed comments by me along with the accusations that they are personal attacks. The substance of the comment was that the inference that User:SeraphimXI has contributed nothing of substance during his/ her time participating in the article. I would suggest this is unreasonable.

• My first comment: [[41]]
• Seraphims removal of my comment with inaccurate summary: [[42]]
• My re-insertion of the comment with supporting comment: [[43]]
• Finally Seraphims latest removal of both initial comment and my commentary on his/ her actions:

[[44]]

This strikes me as, at the very least, vandalism as it is removing reasonable comment from the talk page in an attempt to bolster the editors own position and minimise evidence of disatisfaction with her conduct. Diven the inflammatory nature of the edit summary there is clearly an effort to antagnonise me into reinstating my comments again however I choose not to be drawn into an edit conflict.

This antagnoistic approach follows an attempt by myself to approach a collaboration in Jahbulon which has been met with nothing but hostility by User:SeraphimXI and I believe that this attempt to escalate the situation is related.ALR 00:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)I have notified SeraphimXI of this complaint at: [[45]] noting that I did neglect to sign the comment.

And commented on his/ her actions at: [[46]]

A response highlighting the Seraphims hostility to me is at: [[47]]ALR 00:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

While perhaps not quite rising to the level of personal attack, your comment on that talk page was at the very least a touch snippy, and not likely to help anyone return to calm editing. It was not helpful. You might want to examine your motivations for leaving it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to look at the situation but would welcome a pointer as to which comment you mean? The first which has been twice removed was merely an offhand comment which has been misconstrued. The second was an attempt to mitigate the situation, although I appreciate that it perhaps does not take into account transatlantic differences in sensitivity levels and response to different types of mitigation strategies. The final one is evidence and my motivations are no more than recording the event.ALR 07:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look over the situation, in hindsight I appreciate that I allowed my frustrations at lack of progress on improving the article to come out in a flippant comment.ALR 09:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record. What I was removing as a personal attack was " So I look forward to you actually making a substantive contribution to the article then? It's about time.ALR 18:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)". The "It's about time." shows that the statement was made with sufficient venom to be considered a personal attack. Seraphim 16:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that printed words carry no venom whatsoever I am saddened that you choose to interpret that as a personal attack. I have already noted that I perhaps need to be more aware of the differences in sense of humour between myself as a Scot and you as an American. I type sardonic flippancy, you see venom; although your perception of my motivation does itself illustrate some of the issues.ALR 16:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If ALR had recognised that this was an inappropriate comment that could be (in my opinion was meant to be) an albeit mild personal insult, and had apologised, I would feel that he had a point. He didn't apologise, so I think this is a needless complaint. Please also see the goading on Seraphim's page, kicking her while she's down. It's rather concerted and very ugly. JASpencer 22:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Whenever in doubt, block permanently

"clearly somebody's sock, but I'm unsure whose"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#revenge_of_the_Rajputs.27_sock_army

So much for the egalitarian ideals trumpeted by Wikipedia.

So much for the "Newcomers are always to be welcomed" principal as upheld by Jimbo Wales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales

Should I count myself as a collateral damage in the sock puppet busting carpet-bombing by the administrators?

Can we create an "unknown puppet's memorial" in Wikipedia for me?

Medicine Man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.71.211.59 (talk • contribs)

Anyone care to educate Rschen7754 about vandalism?

He seems to think [48] is vandalism. See #user:SPUI again higher up on this page. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I'm a sysop here. Furthermore User:Nlu holds my views too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Also what is up with this? This is not acceptable. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

But it was OK when it was Alphax doing it? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No but I was blocked from Wikipedia. What, I'm going to use a sock like you did? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You were blocked for violating 3RR because of your incorrect view of vandalism. Please learn what vandalism actually is, and maybe you won't be blocked again. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagreed with Spectre's view that Rschen7754 committed a 3RR violation, but I didn't unblock Rschen7754 because I didn't think a wheel war was the right thing to do. Now, what you are doing now is clearly a personal attack, and you will be blocked in a couple minutes.

Other admins: please don't block without a very good reason. SPUI's conduct is unacceptable. --Nlu (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The first edit SPUI shows, it was just the rollback button being used to revert. While it was generally only used for vandalism in the past, it has been used (de facto) by administrators if they need to revert anything. Either by one button or by a few, a revert was performed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Except it was reverting vandalism since {{fact}} is article space and SPUI knows that. But really the block isn't at the heart of the matter; I did my time, justified or not. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked SPUI, as I feel the current block was inappropriate. I will not unblock again if someone decides I shouldn't have unblocked. Note that SPUI has been blocked many times during his time here, and usually for a damn good reason; it's a marvel he was able to extract any sympathy at all. SPUI: if you continue to be a dickhead, you will run out of people willing to unblock you. Nlu: I don't think you or Rschen should block SPUI for, at least, a very long time. You are too personally involved; this thread, while hardly a shining moment even for someone held to as low a standard as SPUI, does not qualify as a personal attack and could only be considered one by someone who is truly unable to be objective. Please, take a step back, enjoy a nice cocktail, and relax and go worry about someone else. If SPUI steps over the line, there's a long enough queue of people watching him that you don't need to. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. I've reinstituted the block, and I don't see how I'm "too personally involved," given that prior to yesterday I had no disputes (indeed, contacts) with SPUI at all. That I've experienced SPUI's behavior first hand since then doesn't make me unobjective, I don't think. I'd block anyone with the same behavior the same length. Feel free to bring me up on WP:RfAr if you think what I did is inappropriate. There having been no good reason that I've seen to unblock SPUI, I've reinstituted the block. If you think that there is a good reason to unblock, please explain rather than just assert. --Nlu (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Just an additional thought on this: please reflect on this question; if this were an anonymous IP engaging in this behavior (including self-admitted sockpuppetry), would he/she be blocked the same length, if not longer? I think that the honest answer from most admins here would have to be yes. --Nlu (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

He made no personal attacks in this thread. However, you cite personal attacks here as your reason for blocking. How much clearer could it be? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, missed the "additional thought". No, an IP would not be blocked for the same length or longer: I rarely block IPs for more than 24 hours, and often I'll block for less. Secondly, his behaviour in this case (making a joke on CASH, asking to be unblocked, and insisting that non-vandalism edits aren't vandalism) would not see anyone blocked, not even SPUI. As for "self-admitted sockpuppetry", I mean, he called his sockpuppet "Sockenpuppe", and one of the first things the sock did was identify itself as a sock of SPUI. That is hardly the same thing as your common or garden-variety sockpuppet block-evading routine. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks here. This is nonsense. — Mar. 21, '06 [06:17] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

In what way is the section heading of this section not a personal attack? --Nlu (talk) 06:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It implies that I am an admin who got ratified by insane people and that I do not know how to do my job. How would you like that if I implied that about you? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Identifying a content dispute as vandalism, rolling back SPUI's edits because they were critical of your position. I'm concerned about it myself. — Mar. 21, '06 [06:24] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

And you notice that I didn't unblock myself? That I never blocked SPUI? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I noticed that. It's a good sign that you know better than you act. — Mar. 21, '06 [06:47] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Un unblocking himself would have been an act. So he knows and acts better. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I was referring to the fact that Rschen knew better than to block SPUI, as it was clearly an edit war, not simple vandalism, yet he still rolled it back as such, and issued boilerplate "vandalism" warnings, which is more insulting than what some of us have felt it appropriate to block SPUI a whole week for. — Mar. 21, '06 [07:26] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I would also back Rschen's defense of himself in this case, especially against User:freakofnature who is hardly a model admin. Unblocking admitted socks so they can disrupt other user's edits is hardly appropriate.Gateman1997 06:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

At least SPUI claims his "sockpuppet", and doesn't use it for vote-stacking and edit warring, as I've stated several times. — Mar. 21, '06 [06:45] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Using a sock to get around a block is not allowed and should not be encoraged or defended. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

As I stated before, he used the "sockpuppet" to notify JDoorjam (who attempted to unblock SPUI http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=JDoorjam&page=User%3AUser%3ASPUI], note the duplicated User: prefix) that his unblock had failed due to user error, and that User:SPUI was still blocked, no longer for any fault of his own. — Mar. 21, '06 [07:44] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

And he used his sock to turn me in for "3RR". If you don't believe me, it's still on the WP:AN/3RR page. He couldn't wait until he was unblocked? This is evading the block. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That's still no excuse to use a sockpuppet, which should have been blocked long ago since it had no legitimate purpose. If he wanted to notify JDoorjam, he could use e-mail -- as we instruct people to do when they're blocked as collateral damage. There was no justifiable reason to use a sockpuppet. --Nlu (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What other sockpuppet are you referring to? No other users involved with this debate have any socks except SPUI.Gateman1997 07:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Initially, I must say I did not think that SPUI violated his probation (see WP:AER), but upon second reading, I think he violated the term of "no provocative edits." I still believe that his edits yesterday were vandalistic, but if they were not, they were certainly provocative -- and his taunting of Rschen7754 today is certainly provocative. Of course, according to Mark, maybe I'm being too close to this. But I think I can honestly say that I would, in fact, block anyone with this behavior. If I'm too harsh, then that harshness isn't SPUI-specific. --Nlu (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. [49]. — Mar. 21, '06 [06:43] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Taking things out of context, aren't we? See [50] and [51]; pay attention to SPUI's prior blocks (or, what we call in the criminal justice business, prior convictions). I think, again, I can honestly say that I do block people with the same behavior with the same prior blocks with the same length. --Nlu (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at it. And it seems that SPUI is the only registered user whom you've blocked on more than one separate occasion. Three times in fact, and each one was reversed as inappropriate. — Mar. 21, '06 [07:23] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

If the first block (yesterday) had stuck, we wouldn't need the second block, would we? And if the second block had stuck, we wouldn't need the third block, would we? Accusing me of blocking him too many times is self-contradictory, for someone who unblocked him. If he had remained blocked from yesterday, he wouldn't be around today to provoke Rschen; ergo, the subsequent block (and reblock) would not have been necessary.

In any case, most "registered user blocks" are one-time things, since those tend to be indefinite blocks, and of course you wouldn't need to indefinitely block three times. I've certainly blocked some IPs more than a couple times. And, again, with anyone else, I think with such a long list of misbehaviors, that person would have been blocked indefinitely already. --Nlu (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been better to say "provocotive edits as per his probation" as the reason for the block rather than personal attacks? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears someone has reduced his block anyway.Gateman1997 06:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a certain degree of SPUI-baiting going on here, and the whole circle of "provocative edit, over-reaction, more provocative edits" is unfortunate. Is there any chance that we could stop kicking in the guts someone who's known to flare up? The use of {{fact}} was about a three (out of ten) on the dick scale, but using the rollback button was a five. I don't give a rat's arse about de facto, it's bad form if for no other reason than it doesn't give an expository edit summary. (Which I note with some amusement SPUI gets tuned up for by Oleg Alexandrov on his talk.) The topic here is just another in a slight edging upwards of hostility that all parties are to some degree taking part in, but it's not a "personal attack". - brenneman^{L} 06:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never had an encounter with SPUI prior to yesterday, and yesterday, upon on seeing what I considered inappropriate behavior, I blocked him a week -- the same length I would impose for someone for whom prior 48-hour blocks did nothing to reform the behavior of. How is that "SPUI-baiting" or overreaction? Again, would an anonymous IP which displayed the same pattern of failure to reform not have gotten progressively longer blocks? --Nlu (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:BP, I do not feel that anything SPUI has done here rises to the level of requiring an *extremely harsh* one-week ban from editing. There is a heated content dispute, and hackles are raised on both sides. I feel that a 12-hour ban fulfills the apparent need to cool the situation down. I suggest that *no action* be taken with regard to the dispute at this point until a mediator be appointed, or a request for comment filed. FCYTravis 06:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Many people have tried to work with him nicely... we get snide comments and reverts with no explaination for our trouble... and it just goes from there. We give a little, and in response he gives nothing but lip. Any ideas about what to do in a situation like that? Gateman1997 06:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Diyako makes false additions to articles with pboney verifications

This user adds materils to articles and uses false verifications (i.e. blank pages or google search pages). He additional makes false statments and is protected by a certain administrator who allows him to make racist comments with a slap on the hand. 69.196.139.250 21:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That administrators name is user:InShaneee. That administrator has taken sides and is also out to get Kash. If you look at user:Acuman and User:Dikayo and user:Manik666 talk pages it is all evident. 69.196.139.250 21:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Mike O'Neal

This page appears to be reposted deleted content, yet the writer of this page stubbornly wants to keep it, even removing a speedy delete tag I placed. Should this page really be deleted or not? --TML1988 23:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. The first version was deleted because there was no prose, just a list of facts. Although I do think we shouldn't call the subject of an article by their first name throughout the article, it's too breezy. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

WTF

this is a really [bleep]ed up vandalism [[52] and here's another 1, (wtf sand box vandelism >_<) [[53]] 66.169.0.252 02:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. Experimentation is what the Sandbox is for. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

on 02:32, 02:30 and 02:26 UTC, 64.131.43.6, an anon IP added scrutiny to the sandbox! 66.169.0.252 02:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that any user can hit the "reset" link on the sandbox, which clears the page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The sandbox is just that, a place where anyone can do pretty much any edit they want with the only exception being things that are attacks against other people, threats, things that are detrimental to the wiki as a whole, illegal, or break the sandbox. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Boiling point

Can someone please have a word with Ponce003 (talk · contribs) regarding the rubbish they were posting to Allen Chung? It's time I stepped back because the point where people start making false accusations of racism against me is where I reach my boiling point. -- Francs2000 02:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous deletion of links (Linkspam by Rhtcmu (talk · contribs)

You wrote: "Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia as we drive for print or DVD publication; see the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)"

And evidently deleted a number of links to full text authoritative scanned books on key subjects (e.g., probably one of the most authoritative books on horse carriages ever written). For example, a book from the mid 1800s with all of John Saxe's poetry (not part of it, all of it, all the page images, and all OCRd for free reading and search). Could there be a better link of the page on John Saxe? These books are on CMU SCS servers with a handful of exceptions having to do with technical issues, and are not by any stretch of the imagination up for commercial purposes. I index them from a .net site which was built at CMU many many years ago, etc etc. I find it abhorent that you would think Wikipedia could write a page on Saxe and prohibit a link to all his poetry in one place as originally published (for reading), with full text search (for research), when he was still alive. No second source or vague statement about Saxe can replace reading his real poetry Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia as we drive for print or DVD publication; see the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And evidently deleted a number of links to full text authoritative scanned books on key subjects (e.g., probably one of the most authoritative books on horse carriages ever written). For example, a book from the mid 1800s with all of John Saxe's poetry (not part of it, all of it, all the page images, and all OCRd for free reading and search). Could there be a better link of the page on John Saxe? These books are on CMU SCS servers and are not by any stretch of the imagination up for commercial purposes. I index them from a .net site which was built at CMU, etc etc. I find it abhorent that you would think you could write a page on Saxe and then prohibit a link to all his poetry in one place as published when he was still alive. John Saxe wrote "six blind men and an elephant" but it looks like Wikipedia editors are just that: you can't recognize the value of the ORIGINAL source material from over a century ago and can only value vague second source descriptions of it. I honestly thought, for a minute there, that Wikipedia wanted to get out the truth and not be a commercial outfit.

Other deletions: 1. Weems original Biography of Benjamin Franklin written and sold in Philadelphia during the time when people who knew Franklin still lived. Free Full image text of early 1800's book, Full Search, and deleted this from the page describing the life of Benjamin Franklin. 2. *Actual* Little Golden Books scanned from the Golden Books Family Entertainment Library (corporate library, with permission, ten years ago) to show people what these books actually looked like on the page that only describes Little Golden Books. Free to read. Only full text copies free to read on the web (Random House later bought the company). 3. United States Army Regulations from 1861: not A SUMMARY, not a partial description, not a reference to some obscure ISBN number, but the actual book published in 1861 with every page scanned and full text indexed for researchers, on the US Army page talking about Civil War regulations. 4. Almost 2000 pictures from the history of art assembled by faculty from a half dozen universities and put in the public domain and labelled carefully as to content and provenance. Picked to be the most representative. Free to view at high resolution (pictures can go to resolutons based on average 20 megabyte jpeg. -- no attempt to extort money for view here.) This on the History of Art page. What could be more relevant content? 5. An incredible book describing a Frontier Town in the old west cotemporaneous with the Old West (not a 'cowboy book'). This referred on the page that only describes second hand what the old west was like. Again, no ISBN reference but the actual book, free to read, every page as it was originally presented a century ago in full color, and search in full text.

The other cases are all similar. I hand scan these books because often the original book is the most authoritative source.

I personally find that a library reference or a reference to a book I have to pay money for is an afront, when the web should make these original source materials free to read, view, and search. To call these commercial links is beyond belief. It took me about five years to get around to putting in a dozen or so because I thought people might actually appreciate original source material. Obviously you don't. I suspect this is not a mistake on your part since you want to create "a printed or DVD wikipedia" which implies commercial intent on your part. Maybe you should look to a better calling and maybe all the people who contribute to wikipedia (as I have) should reconsider what they thought was a process to get high quality material out to the world for free access. —This unsigned comment was added by Rhtcmu (talk • contribs) 03:41, 22 March 2006.

• I think this is a borderline case. While the full text of these books is available for free, they are hosted on, or have links to, Antiquebooks.com, which states prominently on its home page, Antique Books, Inc. sells book digitizing services, book displays, book hosting, and book servers for the web. Contact us for any aspect of what we do. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for free advertising. If you are truly interested in bringing these old references to a modern audience for free, I suggest you contribute your scans to The Gutenberg Project. Then there won't be any issue with possible use of wikipedia resources for promoting a private business. Thatcher131 04:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Better yet, contribute the scans to Wikisource. That would be a perfect way to get your "high quality material out to the world for free access", just as you say -- and it'd be warmly appreciated! - Greg Price 06:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Block in error

GoldToeMarionette was blocked in error without any violation of Wikipedia policy. Please unblock this account. If a policy violation has taken place, please cite the violation on GoldToeMarionette's Talk Page. TheBringerOfPeace 05:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Creating another sock to plead the case is bad form. Go back to your regular account and do it from there. I've blocked TheBringerOfPeace as a sock being used to circumvent a block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Deathrocker

Deathrocker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been blocked for violating 3RR seven times in the past three months; twice in the past three days. He's taken swings at everyone who has come near him, especially Sceptre, who gave him a four-day block for his latest (read: seventh) 3RR violation. This is becoming a disruption This has become a disruption, and needs to be dealt with before it becomes an ArbCom case. I'm inclined to support a month long block, to enforce enough time for him to read WP:3RR very carefully and get the picture that disrupting the site will not be tolerated. Of course, before doing so, I want to hear others' opinions; opinions? Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR blocks by six different administrators, a tendentious history, and now he's starting to blank portions of his talk page. I'd say a month off is entirely appropriate. There's no reason why people should have to keep putting up with this. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 14:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Especially me, just clean off a wikibreak close to taking another one (WP:ESP/ALERT). Or User:Leyasu, who got an arbcom ruling restriction to one revert a day while warring with this user. Sceptre ^(Talk) 19:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the user blasted me on IRC for dealing with their unblock request and was promptly kickbanned, no proof that the IRC user was the WP user but its too close not to raise an eyebrow -- Tawker 19:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The talk page-blanking is nothing new; Deathrocker has continually done this since December. As a result, he/she received several redundant 3RR warnings from users who probably didn't realize that he/she already had been warned (1, 2, 3, 4). He/she also routinely removed messages pertaining to various other issues (including general edit warring, vandalism, incivility, and the talk page-blanking itself). A one-month block seems appropriate. —David Levy 19:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Im violating my Ban by doing this, but im using an anon to add this comment here. Ive set up a rather extensive list of Deathrockers actions as part of my user page, which is linked here, here and here. This also includes the extensive revert war on his talk page. All diffs are supplied so there is no hear say or attacks by me or anyone else. I hope this helps somewhat for the purposes of deciding his case, wether for, against, or just for reference/comment. 86.132.130.69 20:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC) (Ley Shade)

Given that I've been involved, I'm not comfortable setting the month long block, but it certainly seems to have drawn consensus. Can an uninvolved admin (or one more rogue than I) set it, please? Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 08:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for a month.--Sean Black ^(talk) 08:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

We need to get something against Deathrocker, though, to stop the two edit warring. With Leyasu limited to 1RR, and Deathrocker still on 3RR, there needs to be levelling of the field 18:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems there is no other way for me to voice my side other than this, (because some dunce has blocked my talkpage), Leyasu did the same so will I as my original ban is now up.

Firstly; I delete all messages I receive which is stated on my page! Don’t like that? Don’t message me. I did not "delete the warning" from the last ban, I kept it on while the ban still stood, I deleted redundant talk.

It is no different than people archiving their messages (they are still there for people to see if they wish), please tell me where it says I can't do that. And I can’t delete blocking logs so “boom” goes your silly little theory of “hiding“ anything.

Second to Tawker; I do not even use ICR, period. Either for Wiki or personal. Let alone "blast" you on it.

I put an “unblock” tag on my page, as I had been blocked for 4 days, for 3RR, which WP:3RR states is not Wikipedia policy as admins can only block “up to 24 hours” for 3RR, a non admin user “Tawker” kept removing the tag, while the discussion was in process.. and before an admin has looked at the case.

EssJay shows up to “look at the case” threatens me claiming I’m attempting to “game the system”, even thought I was just going by WP:3RR, EssJay then threatened to block me for a week, if I put the tag back on my page (which is first ridiculous, blocked for requesting help?? haha and second, I didn’t re-add it after that).. I instead emailed the user, through Wiki to discuss the matter, to which they were still hostile, abrasive, and claiming Non existing Wikipedia policies to be golden, going against WP:3RR

And on to Leyasu... (surprise, surprise)

This more applies to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#Leyasu_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs_.E2.80.A2_page_moves_.E2.80.A2_block_user_.E2.80.A2_block_log.29

But I’ll post it here anyway

I have never once claimed the policies don't apply to me, and do to others. Please feel free to show me exactly where I said that, you won’t be able to find it because you’re talking rubbish as usual.

Its also hilarious that you are pretending not to be the IP addresses whose only edits were reverting the articles back to your versions and even using the exact same line as each other in edit summaries once the I.P. address was switched the second time. It wasn't even me who first reported it as been a suspected sock puppet of yours. If you were smart enough to actually check the records, you would know this.

The only people who were siding with your reverts were anonymous I.P.'s which were suspected (not just by me) of been YOUR sock puppets, something which you have been suspected of in the past in totally unrelated debates... actual users who were not suspected of been sock puppets were also reverting your trolling.

Even if I was not involved in the day this went down, you STILL broke your parole anyway, you reverted three perfectly reasonable edits by User:RJN to POV versions by yourself, because you think you own the article Gothic Metal.[54][55][56]

You do not understand the concept that this is an open encyclopaedia where numerous people contribute into working an article, if its not your version, regardless of which user is editing it its "vandalism" according to you, and then after a revert war and both you and who you were warring with are banned, you come straight back with sock puppets.

The only way you can get any sort of pull in your edits is talking straight out of your ass, claiming to quote me on things I have NEVER once said.

There are no “rules” as to how users keep their talk page or user page that I am aware of or have read on here, there was no sexual profanity, or anything of that nature, so again, you’re clutching at straws.

You want Ironic? Here’s Ironic;

1. On your userpage you have a box that says “This user is short sighted.”... no kidding! You see everything that isn’t an edit by you as vandalism, or not worthy of been included in the articles you troll on a regular basis.

2. The fact that you kiss user:Sceptre ass to have an admin on your "side", notice how on your talk page Sceptre said "be careful" trying to save your pathetic hide, did Sceptre give me the same warning beforehand? No... hardly an impartial stance for a so called "admin"... also, somebody who breaks a 3RR deserves the same punishment as somebody who is on parole for past idiocy, and is on a strict "1 revert a day" basis?.. ridiculous and a clear abuse of admin powers.

Examples of Leyasu been a liar and a manipulator

For onlookers here’s a prime example of how devious Leysau is with twisting words...

Example #1. Deathrocker on Talk:Gothic_metal: Also, stop the personal attacks and lies in the edit summary, I have not been "warned by 3 admins" one of which I have never even heard of, your ignorant behaviour is somewhat overwhelming at times

I was refering to the edit war that was going on at the time

Leyasu on User_talk:Sceptre: Hes taking advantage no end, and just made a comment on the Gothic Metal talk page, that you dont exist!!!

Ok, now where in that sentence did I say Sceptre did not exist? This is prime Leysau in action.. ass kissing an admin, I never even claimed which admin's name was not familiar to me, let alone claiming they didn't exist.

Example #2.

On Leyasu's tribute and rather odd little shrine to me that he/she has gone to the trouble of creating it says;

Quote: Deathrocker has also used edit summarys for making direct personal attacks at myself, including called me a liar, cunt, and shit.

This is an other blatant lie, I have called you a liar? Yes (because that is what you are). I have called you shit? No, I referred you to WP:BATSHIT though, asking you to stop the lunacy, Which isn't the same thing.

Called you a cunt? Total bullshit, I have not called a single person on Wikipedia a "cunt" and again you evidence of it either....

I have though called you an idiot, and a liar in the last, because your actions suggest that.

Example #3

Another one of Leyasu's greatest hits from his/her disturbing little shrine to me.

Quote: Deathrocker also vandalised my user page (Leyasu),.. Admin Sceptre reverted this himself, pointing out to Deathrocker that he cannot attack as being a 'sock puppeter' simply because Deathrocker cannot force his POV onto all articles,.

After Sceptre had removed it, Deathrocker readded it, claiming everyone was 'vandalising',

I added a "suspected puppetmaster" tag to Leysau's page, as he/she features on the suspected of using sock puppets page.

An anonymous IP (83.100.146.147) reverted and said "Guess I sock with 217.33.207.195, then (--Sceptre)"... to which I reverted back as that made little to no sense, was suspicious (why would an admin use an annoymous IP?) and had little/nothing to do with the whether Leyasu was suspected of using sock puppets or not, the line I used in the edit summary was.... "unexplained tag removal, it applies correct?"... nowhere did I say in that statement that everybody was “vandalisng“, just more bullshit from Leyasu.

Rather suspiciously my last edit on that userpage was reverted back by (81.157.88.186) who was suspected of being a “sock puppet” of Leyasu and was reported as so on the sockpuppets page...

At this time Leyasu was still blocked, rather suspicious that a so called “newbie”/annoymous I.P. would not only be reverting all edits back to versions by leyasu while he/she was blocked, but also keeping an eye on his/her userpage too?.... very suspicious. Why would a bran new person editing wikipedia for the first time be doing that? They wouldn't.

If I am to be blocked for a month for arguing in edit summary, the other party who was involved “Leyasu” should too. - DeathrockerComment 20:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

To show the Personal attacks and fallacys from the above, i have quoted them with bullet points:

• I have never once claimed the policies don't apply to me, and do to others. Please feel free to show me exactly where I said that, you won’t be able to find it because you’re talking rubbish as usual.

Diffs for all Deathrocker's commments and attacks are logged Here, including the one where he called me 'psychotic for having a whole page devoted to harassing him'.

• You do not understand the concept that this is an open encyclopaedia where numerous people contribute into working an article, if its not your version, regardless of which user is editing it its "vandalism" according to you, and then after a revert war and both you and who you were warring with are banned, you come straight back with sock puppets.

This is a personal attack. Deathrocker states here i do not know something, when i have been known to let people know when they are acting Meglomanical. Its also wrong when i havent been banned seven times in three months for POV pushing, when Deathrocker has.

• The only way you can get any sort of pull in your edits is talking straight out of your ass, claiming to quote me on things I have NEVER once said.

This is another personal attack, in which he just called me an ass. Deathrocker will probally now claim he never one said im an ass.

• 1. On your userpage you have a box that says “This user is short sighted.”... no kidding! You see everything that isn’t an edit by you as vandalism, or not worthy of been included in the articles you troll on a regular basis.

This is a personal attack at the fact im short sighted and wear glasses.

• 2. The fact that you kiss user:Sceptre ass to have an admin on your "side", notice how on your talk page Sceptre said "be careful" trying to save your pathetic hide, did Sceptre give me the same warning beforehand? No... hardly an impartial stance for a so called "admin"... also, somebody who breaks a 3RR deserves the same punishment as somebody who is on parole for past idiocy, and is on a strict "1 revert a day" basis?.. ridiculous and a clear abuse of admin powers.

This is a personal attack at both myself and Admin Sceptre, due to Sceptre having made the initial bans, and because there is no animosity, unpolite language, or general hostility between me and the admin. Also, if i had an 'admin on my side', Sceptre wouldnt of banned me.

• Example #1. Deathrocker on Talk:Gothic_metal: Also, stop the personal attacks and lies in the edit summary, I have not been "warned by 3 admins" one of which I have never even heard of, your ignorant behaviour is somewhat overwhelming at times

Deathrocker here claims i am a liar, and he has never been warned by any admins. The irony of this is that Admins here have already showed multiple warnings that Deathrocker has deleted from his talk page.

• On Leyasu's tribute and rather odd little shrine to me that he/she has gone to the trouble of creating it says;

This is an attack at the Evidence Page that is part of my userpage, which is also being used as my statement in Deathrocker's abbirition case.

• Quote: Deathrocker has also used edit summarys for making direct personal attacks at myself, including called me a liar, cunt, and shit.

Yes this is on my Evidence Page, here are the Diffs as well, [57], [58].

• Another one of Leyasu's greatest hits from his/her disturbing little shrine to me.

Another personal attack at the Evidence Page.

• Rather suspiciously my last edit on that userpage was reverted back by (81.157.88.186) who was suspected of being a “sock puppet” of Leyasu and was reported as so on the sockpuppets page...

Reported, by Deathrocker.

• If I am to be blocked for a month for arguing in edit summary, the other party who was involved “Leyasu” should too.

This is a plea to block me to achieve a 'beat the opponent' scheme, even though Deathrocker's 'comment' was riddled with personal attacks and infallacys.

I am also going to add this to my Evidence page, so that it can be adminstrated into the Abbirition case. Ley Shade 21:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet more shining examples of your ridiculousness, you claim every comment discussing things you have done is a "personal attack".... by your standards you personally attacked me multiple times in that last section due to you claiming I'm "personally attacking" you. Stop crying "wolf".

I find your shrine rather disturbing, you expect me to lie? You aren't an administrator or anything like that, you are a user who is in trouble with ArbiCon, wy are you keeping tabs on me dedicating a whole section of your user page to me? That doesn't strike you as psychotic behaviour?

Again I said you were "talking out of your ass", I didn't say "you are an ass"... this is what I'm talking about with your selective reading and minipulation of comments. You also still can't show anywhere I have ever called anybody on Wikipedia a "cunt" because I never had.

If me suggesting both parties involved should be blocked for the same length of time is "trying to beat an apponent", exactly what is it you were doing when you said "we need something against Deathrock, as the other editor is on a 1 rever parole basis"?? - DeathrockerComment 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have bulletpointed the attacks from this comment, as well:

• Yet more shining examples of your ridiculousness, you claim every comment discussing things you have done is a "personal attack".... by your standards you personally attacked me multiple times in that last section due to you claiming I'm "personally attacking" you. Stop crying "wolf".

Deathrocker makes the personal attack of calling me ridiculous for noting that calling me a cunt, liar, bitch, twat, fool, shit, and insulting me for wearing glasses is a personal attack.

• I find your shrine rather disturbing, you expect me to lie? You aren't an administrator or anything like that, you are a user who is in trouble with ArbiCon, wy are you keeping tabs on me dedicating a whole section of your user page to me? That doesn't strike you as psychotic behaviour?

Deathrocker here calls me psychotic and claims im not allowed to have an Evidence page because im not an admin, even though other admins first told me to use Evidence pages such as these for 'sandboxes' when building up a case against someone.

• Again I said you were "talking out of your ass", I didn't say "you are an ass"... this is what I'm talking about with your selective reading and minipulation of comments. You also still can't show anywhere I have ever called anybody on Wikipedia a "cunt" because I never had.

Deathrocker again makes the personal attack of claiming im 'talking out of my ass', seemingly assuming that its ok to make personal attacks at users.

• If me suggesting both parties involved should be blocked for the same length of time is "trying to beat an apponent", exactly what is it you were doing when you said "we need something against Deathrock, as the other editor is on a 1 rever parole basis"??

Deathrocker then makes claim that i made a comment that was made by Admin Sceptre, going a backhanded way about claiming that myself and Admin Sceptre are the same person, [59].

This is more of the personal attacks and disruption of Deathrocker. Ley Shade 23:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have never called you or anybody here a "twat, cunt, bitch or shit"... I refered you to WP:BATSHIT though, as already explained which is not a personal attack, in an attempt for you to stop the lunacy during an edit war, while asking you to join the talk page.

Its not a "personal attack" to call you a liar, because that is what you are and you prove it to me constantly... I don't care where you are, you lie, I'll call you on it. Stop personally attacking me and defaming my character by claiming I have said stuff which I never had.

I've called you an idiot and a liar, that much is true.

Again you are twisting words "We need to get something against Deathrocker, though, to stop the two edit warring. With Leyasu limited to 1RR, and Deathrocker still on 3RR, there needs to be levelling of the field 18:05, 20 March 2006".... was an unsigned comment, I presumed it was you as you were using an IP just a couple of replies above, and it sounds like something you would say.

Again you are talking rubbish, I have never claimed you and Sceptre are the same person, I have stated that I think you kiss Sceptre's ass, correct?... I have never said that I think you are the same person as you claim, your lies aren't even well thought out or following consistantcy, and you wonder why I have in the past refered to some of your actions as idiocy?

And also I didn't say "you can't have a shrine" to me, because you aren't an admin, I asked why you have it and stated that it is odd, as you are just a user who has been blocked plenty of times yourself and you are even on parole. The fact that I find it disturbing and rather creepy that you keep tabs on me in some kinda warped shrine, is just my feelings on the matter.

Oh and Scepter on this comment; "user:Leyasu who got an arbcom ruling restriction to one revert a day while warring with this user."... Leyasu got an arbcom ruling restriction for warring with another user, whos name is user:Danteferno on the Gothic Metal article, check Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Leyasu, I'm not even one of the involved parties. - DeathrockerComment 00:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

More personal attacks listed below:

• Its not a "personal attack" to call you a liar, because that is what you are and you prove it to me constantly... I don't care where you are, you lie, I'll call you on it. Stop personally attacking me and defaming my character by claiming I have said stuff which I never had.

Deathrocker here says its not a personal attack for him to call anyone anything. Thus, he seems to think that its ok to make personal attacks against people, and then expect to be unblocked.

• Again you are talking rubbish, I have never claimed you and Sceptre are the same person, I have stated that I think you kiss Sceptre's ass, correct?... I have never said that I think you are the same person as you claim, your lies aren't even well thought out or following consistantcy, and you wonder why I have in the past refered to some of your actions as idiocy?

As can be seen above, Deathrocker inferred that a comment made by Sceptre was made by me, thus inferring that Sceptre and Me are the same person.

• And also I didn't say "you can't have a shrine" to me, because you aren't an admin, I asked why you have it and stated that it is odd, as you are just a user who has been blocked plenty of times yourself and you are even on parole. The fact that I find it disturbing and rather creepy that you keep tabs on me in some kinda warped shrine, is just my feelings on the matter.

Further personal attacks concerning the Evidence Page, and claims he hasnt made comments that are clearly quoted above. Ley Shade 01:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice try at "twisting" words again, Leyasu. You continue to personally attack me by A) Claiming I'm personally attacking you B) Twisting my words into your own little perversion.

"Deathrocker here says its not a personal attack for him to call anyone anything."

Yet mores lies, please study this aticle; truth, and try again...

I never said that it is OK for me to call "anyone anything". If I called somebody a "cunt" or "twat", without any evidence of such activity, that would be a personal attack, thus I have not called you or anybody else for that matter, anything of the like.

Calling you a liar when you have clearly tried to distort words I have said and in some cases, totally made them up (and you can't even show where I've supposedly called you them) shows you fit the discription of the word liar. I call things how they are, unlike you who keeps trying to twist things, and you'll probably come back in a moment and try to twist comments make in this section, pathetic.

Yet again, I DO NOT THINK SCEPTRE AND YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON! Repeat these words until it drills into your head, as I've explained previously, why I thought that was a comment by you at first. (IE- It was unsigned, and you were using an IP just a few comments above). - DeathrockerComment 01:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Continued attacks and violation of his ban by Deathrocker:

• Nice try at "twisting" words again, Leyasu. You continue to personally attack me by A) Claiming I'm personally attacking you B) Twisting my words into your own little perversion.

Now making personal attacks in the sense of attempting to deframe my character and the quotes of him both attacking myself, and violating his ban.

• Calling you a liar when you have clearly tried to distort words I have said and in some cases, totally made them up (and you can't even show where I've supposedly called you them) shows you fit the discription of the word liar. I call things how they are, unlike you who keeps trying to twist things, and you'll probably come back in a moment and try to twist comments make in this section, pathetic.

Deathrocker here claims that by directly quoting him, ive 'totally made them up ', and also personally attacks me, calling me a liar for quoting him. He also calls me pathetic for the same reason.

• Yet again, I DO NOT THINK SCEPTRE AND YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON! Repeat these words until it drills into your head, as I've explained previously, why I thought that was a comment by you at first. (IE- It was unsigned, and you were using an IP just a few comments above).

Here Deathrocker assumes a threatening tone because i wont stop quoting him either on the ANI board or on my Evidence Page.

This behaviour doesnt seem to of ceased, and someone needs to block his openly confessed sock puppet. Ley Shade 01:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet you persist with your personal attacks and defemation of character, claiming I'm "personally attacking" you with every comment, is it any suprise that you are already Arbcom parole?

"Deathrocker here claims that by directly quoting him, ive 'totally made them up"

You knew exactly what I was referring to.

In the last week you've claimed I've said "I dislike Gothic metal", and that I've called you a "cunt, twat, bitch, etc", when you can't even quote them, these are just two examples of what I mean when I say you "totally made them up".

- DeathrockerComment 01:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Persistant deframing of my character by Deathrocker:

• In the last week you've claimed I've said "I dislike Gothic metal", and that I've called you a "cunt, twat, bitch, etc", when you can't even quote them, these are just two examples of what I mean when I say you "totally made them up".

Again, all these claims have diffs, supplied openly on this evidence page.

Perhaps the user Deathrocker would like to use his sockpuppet to make comment on his Arbcom case, instead of personally attacking people on ANI. Ley Shade 02:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Your little shrine or "Temple of Deathrocker" is incorrect on basic facts.

Firstly there are no "diffs" showing where I said I "dislike gothic metal" or called you a "cunt, twat, bitch".. infact I have only ever said that I like some Gothic metal bands.

Tawker and Rory69 are NOT admins, check their pages. If you are going to stick your nose in where it has no business atleast get the facts straight. Keep on with your pathetic little shrine kiddo, it doesn't make you seem creepy at all... half of the stuff you are harping on about in it you have little/no idea about in the first place. - DeathrockerComment 04:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

More personal attacks:

• Your little shrine or "Temple of Deathrocker" is incorrect on basic facts.

Personal attack yet again, regarding the Evidence Page.

• Firstly there are no "diffs" showing where I said I "dislike gothic metal" or called you a "cunt, twat, bitch".. infact I have only ever said that I like some Gothic metal bands.

Deathrocker claims there are no diffs for things on the evidence page, when they are clearly provided.

• Tawker and Rory69 are NOT admins, check their pages. If you are going to stick your nose in where it has no business atleast get the facts straight. Keep on with your pathetic little shrine kiddo, it doesn't make you seem creepy at all... half of the stuff you are harping on about in it you have little/no idea about in the first place.

Personally attacking Tawker and Rory69. Now telling myself that i have no place in commenting in the arbcom case or articles im heavily involved with. Also again attacking the Evidence Page. Personally attacking me using a sockpuppet to call me a 'Kid', and telling me 'you have little/no idea' about subjects im involved in.

This user seems highly insistant on attacking me, rather than defending themself on the ArbCom case. Ley Shade 06:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeeeeeeeeah, totally personally attacking Tawker and Rory096 by saying they're not admins (which their pages show... ask them, they aren't admins), whatever, you are past help. I'm working on a reply to your shrine to me, by the way. - DeathrockerComment 07:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker doesnt seem to realise he is on a 1 month block for a reason, personal attacks being one of them:

• Yeeeeeeeeah, totally personally attacking Tawker and Rory096 by saying they're not admins (which their pages show... ask them, they aren't admins), whatever, you are past help. I'm working on a reply to your shrine to me, by the way. - DeathrockerComment 07:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker again infers im 'past help' in the same vein as his attacks that im 'psychotic', an 'idiot', a 'bitch' and 'know nothing'.

Perhaps the user would like to rethink their actions if they wish to be unblocked. Ley Shade 08:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker, I already have a girlfriend! Sceptre ^(Talk) 21:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Put this argument somewhere else. We don't want your petty name-calling, persistent personal attacks, presumption of bad faith and trading of accusations, threats and arguments on AN/I. This discussion does not belong here. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 11:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope I am not beating a dead horse here, but I have started a RfC against this user. I'm new to the RfC/M/Ar process, don't kill me. Sceptre ^(Talk) 20:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Duggan

According to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion, articles are usually debated for "five days or so" before final action is taken. This debate lasted exactly three hours, culminating (after 5 votes) in a speedy keep by Sean Black. Under the heading of "AfD etiquette," participants are advised that "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, and clearly base your recommendations on the deletion policy." SlimVirgin, the primary author, not only failed to declare her interest in the discussion, she also reverted the article three times, deleting the AfD template from the article in question, during the three hour time period. In addition, AfD etiquette recommends that participants should "Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, civility, and assume good faith before making a recommendation as to whether the article should be deleted or not, or making a comment." In her comments on the AfD page, SlimVirgin characterizes the AfD as "vandalism" and the initiator, a new user named User:IAMthatIAM, as "a LaRouche activist with a new account trying to cause trouble." She then blocked IAMthatIAM when he restored the deleted template (see [60].) It appears to me that multiple policies have been violated here. --HK 22:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've spent some time looking into this. Here are my views on your various complaints:

1. Speedy keeps happen when well-sourced, notable articles are put up for deletion for no good reason. That's a judgement call of the closing admin, and it was the right one here.
2. SlimVirgin didn't vote, so declaring herself the an author wasn't really a big deal. In any case, it's less important than the next point.
3. I do wish SlimVirgin had been a bit more civil. However, it is clear that User:IAMthatIAM was an account newly created by a knowledgable user (perhaps previously anonymous) for the express purpose of arguing about issues related to Lyndon LaRouche.
4. Likewise, SlimVirgin as an involved writer of the article ought to have gotten help dealing with this, rather than performing the disruption block herself.

However, nothing that was done was unreasonable, so the case is closed as far as I'm concerned. -- SCZenz 23:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The same LaRouche supporter has turned up with a new account, User:IAMwhatsIAM, and renominated Jeremiah Duggan for deletion. I reverted the edits and blocked the account for 24 hours for vandalism in the first instance, but Fred Bauder has advised that the account may be blockable under the arbitration rulings against LaRouche editors, so I'm going to discuss with him how best to proceed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, socks of this nature may be treated as socks of Herschelkrustofsky and blocked indefinitely upon recognition and anything they do reverted. In such instances Herschelkrustofsky may also be briefly banned, but that is not mandatory action. Herschelkrustofsky is only permitted to edit under one account. Fred Bauder 16:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Fred. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Leyasu violating personal attack parole on his ArbCom ruling

User:Leyasu reverted an edit of mine, erroneously calling it "disguised vandalism" when it really wasn't [61] . Both of us have already been warned that calling good faith edits "vandalism" is considered a personal attack, and he obviously has not listenened to either admins or arbitrators.

A little background on User:Leyasu; before and after his ArbCom case, he has been claming ownership of various articles and changing the genres of many bands to his liking ("gothic doom", which is not even a separate genre to begin with, and several users have told him this over and over).

He has been banned repeatedly for 3RR; he used an IP address "81.157.93.18" [62] during one of his blocks to revert another one of my edits back to his "gothic doom" claim on the Paradise Lost (band) page [63]; Proof that this is him is based on 81.157.93.18's contribution history, which shows edits on User:Leyasu's page.[64]

It appears he has been reported here by different users several times; I would appreciate that an administrator intervene. Also,the ArbCom ruling concluded that if he violated personal attack parole, he would be blocked for a specific amount of time.[65] --Danteferno 12:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, Danteferno is under investigation for being the Sockpuppet/Sockpuppeter of the Deathrocker account: [66], to which end Danteferno has used the Check User board to make personal attacks at myself, and mentioned several times things having happened to himself, that have happened with Deathrocker.

Secondly, Danteferno has also ligiated in Wikilawyering, targeting the Admins Sceptre and WooWhoKitty, per association with Deathrocker. This has been in regards to having me banned from the articles that the Danteferno and Deathrocker account have both been previously/currently banned for revert warring on, [67], [68]. The reason given was that i had violated my revert parole by one edit, after Danteferno went on to brag he had set up an anon to vandalise an article so i would revert it, so he could then revert to the version of the article he wrote, even though the revert was that made to the one by Deathrocker.

These two users have been recognised by both the Abbirition Committe, the ANI, the Mediation Committe, various Admins, the Wikiproject Metal and many other Wikipedians, as serially deconstructive users who have little to no intrest in editing in good faith. This is also confirmed with both users threatening and carrying out the use of Sockpuppets to disrupt and vandalise Wikipedia articles and policy pages when bans are given for their policy violations, per Danteferno's serial vandalism using anons on the Gothic Metal article, and his previous use of anon's to vandalise my talk page, and Deathrocker's open sockpuppet which he used to disrupt the ANI board and talk page, leading to his talk page actually being protected.

As such yes, i violated my rever parole by one edit, one edit from a user who was warned by Admin Spearhead and user WesleyDodds, about removing cited information from articles. Yes i violated my revert parole by one edit, reverting someone who bragged about having set up vandalism to disrupt Wikipedia and push their view onto the article. If the ANI board wishes to ban me for this for an example, then i accept and understand that. I however do ask that the above, and my reason for violating my revert parole, is taken into consideration when judgement is passed on me. Ley Shade 14:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

IP 201.252.215.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) being used to evade block on NoToFrauds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• [69] and continues pattern of reverting Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• [70] and continues pattern of reverting Mahavatar Babaji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Original block by User:Fire Star

---Baba Louis 16:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked both after examining the edit history. NoToFrauds indefinately and 6 months on the IP. I will request a checkuser to confirm but I am pretty certain. If I am wrong I willl unblock accordingly.Gator (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

We try not to block IP addresses for more than 24 hours because of the risk of collatoral damage. A 6 month block on an IP address is too much. The IP seems to be allocated to Apolo -Gold-Telecom-Per in Argentina - the contributions look like they come from one person - but then most users of that telco will be Spanish speaking. Secretlondon 07:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser was "inconclusive" so I lifted the IP block. Please supervise the edits of this IP and report any abuse.Gator (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Jimididit trolling to be a dick

• 16:45, 22 March 2006 David Gerard blocked "Jimididit (contribs)" with an expiry time of 12 hours (idiot trolling on Jimbo's talk. This isn't how to deal with a username block. Please take 12 hours to do something else.)

Jimididit (talk · contribs) was username-blocked months ago for his old username, Jebus Christ. He is now back and wants his old name back! And is pissy about it and being a dick, e.g. [[71]]. We really don't have time to deal with this level of stupidity, so I blocked 12 hours to give him time to think about how not to act like a disruptive dick. Review away - David Gerard 16:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

He has the right to complain to Jimbo! I believe you abused your tools! Shame on you! --Candide, or Optimism 18:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion on the username issue, but I don't see why the block was made. I don't see any explanation for the block on his talk page, and I don't see anything blockworthy in the diff you posted. I don't know much about whatever previous episodes of ill behavior this user may have been involved in, though - it's possible your assumption of bad faith is justified. I think users generally deserve an explanation of why they were blocked. Friday (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Err, block reason is appears to have nothing to do with link provided, and nothing on the talk page, so I'm unblocking. Won't sweat the slightest a re-block that at least pretends to be following the blocking policy. - brenneman^{L} 17:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the block, calling someone an idiot and a dick is completely uncalled-for. Please, David, if you're in a highly emotional state, don't block people. As an experienced editor you should know better. Friday (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Friday. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I get the impression that this isn't exactly unusual for David. He isn't being rude. He's just blunt. It's just how he speaks. And, to be pedantic, he didn't call him an idiot either. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Civility is not optional, regardless of "how one speaks". I read "idiot trolling" as saying the person is an idiot, although I'm open to its intention to have been "idiotic trolling." - brenneman^{L} 00:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"...he didn't call him an idiot either". How do you figure Sam? He quoted it right there in the first line of this section, "idiot trolling on Jimbo's talk". See up there? Just below the section title where he called Jimididit a "dick"? Above the paragraph where he calls him a "dick" engaging in "stupidity" a few more times? Trust me... that actually is "rude", not "just blunt". BTW, if you are going for semantic games about how it was the 'trolling' (which... actually wasn't anything like trolling) which was "idiot", and not the person doing it... I'll skip the whole spiel about how actions don't have minds ('idiot' or otherwise) and the description thus devolves to the actor, and instead just say, "still rude". --CBDunkerson 10:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This is called Assume Good Faith. I know it's difficult sometimes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblocking. It's good to know that it was a breach of wikipedia policy. How should I best complain about the actions of this administrator and seek an apology for the accusations? I've not once ever been involved in trolling and the User Jebus Christ block had nothing to do with trolling. It was a username block. David Gerard didn't bother to even read what i'd written on Jimbo's talk he just assumed it was a rant about the username and that was enough to accuse me of 'idiot trolling' and being a 'dick'. What the hell kind of conduct is that? Jimididit 09:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that complaining about his actions will get you nowhere. Wikipedia is not a petty society where you need to seek retribution against those who have wronged you. An apology, I believe, is merited, but pushing for one is not yours or anybody's place. A single breach of Wikipedia blocking policy is not acceptable, but certainly does not merit a RfC or Arbcom case. If, however, David continues breaching blocking policy in manners such as this, more action may be required. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 10:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not looking for retribution I merely want to see some sort of acknowledgement that what he did was wrong. I'd like to think this is a once off thing and that he doesn't always conduct himself in this manner. I'd also like to think that wikipedia doesn't find this kind of behaviour acceptible. I hope we don't have a culture of bullying here. Thanks Jimididit 11:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You got acknowledgement that the block was wrong- from other people. The block was undone, so what else needs to be resolved? If David Gerard, or any other editor, is regularly being rude and/or blocking inappropriately, this will hurt his reputation over time, and could possibly lead to other consequences. But for now, the problem has been fixed. Friday (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Freestyle.king (talk · contribs)

Freestyle.king was, after his last block had expired, reverting his user page to a state that, in my opinion, called for disruption of Wikipedia. (See [72].) I've reverted to his even older version (as I did previous to his last block). However, I would like opinions on this. Should his preferred version be allowed to stand? Is it a personal attack (albeit against a group, not an individual), deserving of yet another block? Am I wrong about this? --Nlu (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Many people have tirades like that in their userpage. The preferred version is acceptable, now it looks like it is protected to stop criticism. Lapinmies 08:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

From my reading, I can't see any calling-for-disruption -- more of a complaining tirade more than anything else. The criticism is mild (and arugably with merit?) so I can't really see any attacking happening. It does look a bit like heavy handed censorship atm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.177.242.221 (talk • contribs)

OK, per discussion, unprotected. However, it is ironic that this user claims that Wikipedia is suffering from lack of civility, when the user's edits are nothing but personal attacks. --Nlu (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Why is this page black?" things are quite common, for a certain value of "common". There's nothing wrong with it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

umm...if you read my talk page. you'll know i copied "why is this page black?" stuff from this user called "Silensor" so yeah it is quite common. it is also unfair to say i'm making personal attacks because as you can see on my contribution, i'm becoming someone who is capable of useful edits. i even got involved in a new project. Also, Nlu is the one who told me I can post anything I want on my userpage and talkpage as long as I don't personally endorse it. If my userpage violate personal attack, isn't user "Jiang's" userpage and talkpage "Taiwan=shame" even an attack that provoke racial confrontation to a greater scale. This is like public racism and defamation toward a specific ethinic group and their president. I seriously don't get the Nlu's logic, no offense. Anyway thanks guys. I appreciate you guys taking your time about this issue.--Freestyle.king 06:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Jayjg

I thought this issue had been resolved but it unfortunately appears that it isn't. User:Jayjg accused User:Newport of being a "sockpuppet" of User:RachelBrown on the 3RR noticeboard. RachelBrown has now left Wikipedia so this is just not true. Extensive discussions have been had among User:David Gerard, User:Charles Matthews and User:Phil Boswell which established that no actual sock puppetry was involved and all users have now been unblocked without any apologies for their unjust blocking (AFAIK). It is just not acceptable for a Wikipedia admin to make false accusations on another user who has good intentions and has made good edits. Arniep 18:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've had extensive discussions with David and Charles myself, and it has not been at all established that no sockpuppeting was involved. Rather, it has been established that extensive sockpuppeting was involved, though it has also been claimed that it was merely meatpuppeting (a sub-variety of sockpuppeting). And, unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about here, since I'm the one who has all the original evidence, based on which 4 different Arbitration Committee members agreed that serious sockpuppeting was going on. It's only because of my own great forbearance that I haven't re-blocked the puppets; please don't make me regret that decision. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Arnie, it's pretty obvious that one person is behind the Newport and Rachel Brown accounts (the same person who posts on WR as "Guy"), and I'm not aware that s/he has denied it. You have to stop responding to his or her e-mails encouraging you to start another fuss. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No user asked me to do this, I just saw Jay's comment by chance, and, as I know it is not true it is not acceptable to make false accusations against a user who has done absolutely nothing wrong. User:Newport is a friend of User:RachelBrown's who took on watching articles in December that Rachel had started and started articles which Rachel had planned before she left Wikipedia after almost having a breakdown caused by certain users aggressive behaviour. It is true that Rachel and I asked people to vote on Jewish lists and categories on afd and cfd as there was a strong suspicion that a User:Antidote was voting multiple times (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Voting, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Contribution table, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/User comments. The voting did not come as has been claimed under the sock puppeting or meat puppeting rules, as all the accounts that voted were different people who had been making independent edits on different subjects for some months before the alleged multi voting in November. The users were all friends of Rachel but at the time I saw admins asking their friends to vote on afds and cfds all the time so neither I nor Rachel were aware that we were doing anything wrong and the other users were never given a warning about it before being blocked (the users involved were: User:Poetlister, Rachel's best friend, User:Taxwoman, a university friend, and User:Londoneye, Rachel's cousin, all of whom had been making independent edits before there was any controversy over voting on afd or cfds). No action was taken by any admin to block the suspected sock puppets of User:Antidote despite all my work to demonstrate that he had broken Wikipedia rules time and again. Arniep 21:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a non-issue so I'm not going to respond again after this, but I want to point out that (1) you do not know what's true and what isn't (unless you're the person operating the accounts); (2) you forgot about "Lisa," the flatmate; and (3) I wonder if you have any idea how often we're asked to believe that a bunch of users live together, work together, edit the same articles, hold the same opinions, and even make the same spelling mistakes (maybe because they all supposedly went to the same school). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a non issue at all as I know that these are all different people with different names who live in different places and are therefore categorically not sockpuppets and as they all previously had completely different edit histories and did not join just to vote on afds or cfds they are not meatpuppets. Despite my requests to various admins including User:Kelly Martin and User:Ambi to review the information on the Antidote case none of his sockpuppets were banned and no comments were made in support of my investigations. I believe this dispute has been tied into the debate between people who are against Jewish lists or categories (such as yourself and Jayjg) and people who contributed to the lists such as RachelBrown and her friends (actually it was only when people started attacking Rachel that her friends backed her up re:the Jewish Year Book on Talk:List of Jewish jurists) and that unfair bias has been placed on silencing the views of these users as opposed to the lack of action that was taken against User:Antidote who attempted to force the deletion of Jewish lists and categories by using multiple sockpuppets (as well as numerous other violations, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Voting, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Contribution table, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/User comments). The British users all made good edits edits completely independently before they voted on the afds and cfds, and I doubt that they all made those edits from the same locations and ips. I believe this should be able to be checked as presumably some instances can be found where they edited at similar times. Arniep 00:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You "know that these are all different people with different names who live in different places"? How do you know that? And you "doubt that they all made those edits from the same locations and ips". Why do you doubt that? As for my being against Jewish lists, that's simply false; I've even voted on AfDs to keep them. I simply want them to conform to Wikipedia policies, specifically WP:V and WP:NOR. Anything else? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Jay, the argument that they are the same people just doesn't stand up with detailed investigation. They all edited on completely different subjects before November and it seems extremely unlikely that they would have deliberately edited completly different subjects on different accounts just so that they could use the accounts to defend against an attempted forced deletion of Jewish lists by a sock puppet user that was going to occur in the future. I don't think they even visited afd or cfd before User:Antidote started. I have been in contact with them via email and they all have separate names and surnames, one of whom googles as working for the British government. SlimVirgin accused the Guy person as being Rachel- this is impossible as I asked him to ask Rachel to check the Jewish Year Book for references and he said why don't you ask her yourself and gave me her email, so it's highly unlikely that he is her and I find no reason to disbelieve that all the other users are as they are shown in the photographs on their userpages. I realize you are not against all Jewish lists but you did support IZAK's amendment to remove most Jewish-related lists. I personally voted to keep some of the lists involved in the dispute which I now probably wouldn't vote to keep so I am not in favour of keeping most of them either although I think it is perfectly acceptable to have a historical lists but I can't really see the encyclopedic validity of listing living Jewish people. Arniep 00:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I said I wouldn't respond again but there you go. Arnie, just because they gave you different names doesn't mean they really do have different names. Just because you've googled those names and found entries doesn't mean those are the real names. (And the one you mention as working for the British govt: it's a minor civil servant's position, and there's no evidence that person is connected to the Wikipedia accounts). There's other evidence linking them, nothing to do with check user, but to do with material that person has posted or e-mailed, and it can't be discussed openly because then he or she will know to stop doing it. In any event, it doesn't matter so long as they don't post to the same pages and act to deceive other users. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said above it is not just the names that make it extremely unlikely that these are all the same people. They made completely independent edits on completely different subjects for up to 6 months before the voting on the afds and cfds, RachelBrown on Bible and Jewish subjects, Taxwoman on fetish subjects, Londoneye on London locations, and Poetlister on literature. Why would they have made four different accounts in advance to stack vote if they had never shown any interest in afd or cfd until User:Antidote started his campaign of mass sock puppet deletion in late October? The other users only started backing up Rachel after she felt she was being harrassed on Talk:List of Jewish jurists and they voted on the afds and cfds after me and Rachel asked them to do so. All the users involved have requested that their full ip data be sent to them but this has not been done. I still haven't received a reasonable explanation as to why an admin hasn't reviewed the Antidote case and the sock puppets of User:Antidote who wanted to delete the Jewish lists have not been blocked whereas these users who are not sockpuppets and supported the Jewish lists were. Arniep 01:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

See, Arnie, the difference between you and me is that your statements are all based on guesswork, "it seems reasonable to me" arguments, and e-mails from various alleged individuals with pretty pictures on their user pages. On the other hand, my statements are based on hard evidence, of which CheckUser results are only a part. And I'm certainly not going to release that evidence to you, nor to the often mentioned, but never actually seen, "request" by Rachel Brown that the evidence be released to her. We're not in the business of teaching sockpuppets how to be better sockpuppets. Now, since you are simply guessing about all this, whereas I actually know what I'm talking about, until you actually personally meet with the "individuals" in question, I'm going to have to insist that you stop bringing up this topic, which has crossed over the line from whining to actual harassment. Consider yourself duly notified. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to act civily here and I don't think I am harassing anyone. I shouldn't have headed this topic with your username as you certainly weren't the originator of this dispute, and if you feel attacked I apologize for that. I had thought that Rachel and Poetlister had made a request for ip data, if this was not the case I will ask them to do so and copy me the email. Arniep 15:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I also have a complaint about Jayjg (talk · contribs). He misidentified Baba Louis (talk · contribs) and Chai Walla (talk · contribs) as being sockpuppets of myself. When I asked him to reexamine in light of the fact that we were travelling together, he declined to do so saying that it was impossible to verify. I realize that he still would not be able to tell if there was one or three individuals, but he could have at least done nslookup and whois queries on the IP addresses to verify that the edits were indeed coming from first Austin, then the Hilton in Albuquerque, then the Taos Inn and a cybercafe in Taos, NM. At the point I made the request, I was already back in Austin, Chai Walla was in Seattle and Baba Louis had made a edit to my talk page from the Dallas airport. It should have been easy to verify that we had separated. I know records are only kept for a week, so refusing to revisit the issue means that when another admin gets around to looking at it, it will no longer be possible to verify the travel, only that we are now in separate locations. Either there should be a formal process to request a second opinion, or the first admin should be willing to look again if asked. —Adityanath 18:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read your explanation as well. It turns out you weren't sockpuppeting at all, but you "all" simply worked together at the same location, and then travelled together to other countries, where "they" were all using your laptop without your knowledge, making the exact same edits as you. Your story is compelling as Rachel Brown's. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said they used my laptop without my knowledge. We were collaborating, and passing it to the next person who wanted to make an edit. We are all members of the same Nath lineage and have similar but not identical opinions on the articles we worked on. If you couldn't tell we were moving, you must not be very ept with network tools. Why would we all lug laptops to NM when we could share one? You are making an insulting assumption rather than looking again at the data and the subsequent data which would clear me. Why are you so stuck on your own opinion? Are you afraid that you will have to admit to having made a mistake? Even the person who filed the original request has now realized that he was wrong! —Adityanath 18:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

User:SmackBot

Has this bot been approved to do what it says it's doing on its User page? I see a request to do quick non-manual changes, but the request never explained what it was going to do. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Bot flag was approved earlier this month: [73]. --Zsinj^Talk 16:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am dismayed that a bot flag was approved for this bot with so little explanation of what it was going to be doing. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Licorne

Licorne (talk · contribs · block log) After Licorne's one week block expired, he has begun editing again. I have reblocked him because

1. he is about to be banned for a year by the ArbCom (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Licorne/Proposed_decision#Motion_to_close);
2. his anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi vitriol deserve a long block (see the history of User talk:Licorne);
3. he made numerous attempts to evade his block with various IP addresses (see User talk:Licorne for the IP's and block logs).

I am posting here for maximum transparency, because I think it is unusual to reblock a user after his block has expired (without clear evidence of misbehavior after the expiry). His talk page has also been protected, but I suppose he can email me if he likes. –Joke 03:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, the ArbCom reached a final decision, so if anything about this was controversial, it's now an academic question. –Joke 04:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

USAA - sockpuppet User:Philosophenweg for User:Robertjkoenig

The USAA page has a long history of vandalism by one user, originating with user Robertjkoenig, who was permanently banned by Jimbo Wales. Since then, numerous sockpuppets have popped up to attempt to prop up his POV airing of his perceived wrongs [Talk:USAA/Archive09]. It culminated with what I believe to be banning of several of the sockpuppets when children's pictures were posted in Koenig's diatribe.

The vandal has returned, with the same modus operandi, and reverting the page to the same language, and I request this sockpuppet be banned as well. [74]

--Mmx1 03:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I just want to add that Koenig recently said on Talk:USAA that the reason he is persisting is to get his material in Google's archives so it shows up in searches. I can't cite the diffs because the whole talk page was deleted and re-created without these comments, but I guess an admin can still see them. Anyway, I found this to be a serious misuse of Wikipedia and further cause to block all Koenig sockpuppets. --Allen 03:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on my talk page

Recently, Randazzo56, Fat Carl and User:205.188.116.203 have all vandalized my talk page. The first incident happened when Randazzo56 began challenging my interests in certain cars (namely the Eagle Premier and the Plymouth Acclaim). I warned him twice about it, then he left a last message on my talk page stating that he "couldn't care less" if I decided to take action against him (which I obviously did). Then shortly afterwards, Fat Carl arrived and said "Im laughing at your knowledge". Then after I reverted that, 205.188.116.203 came along and said he would "rather be a vandal than a snot nosed little shit, like you." Since all three of these guys have vandalized my talk page less than two hours apart, have vandalized similar pages and were all blocked for various offenses, I heavily suspect these three are related somehow. --ApolloBoy 03:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have my suspicions about these two accounts being connected as well -- they've made similar contributions at Bonnie and Clyde. Have you considered entering a request for a check to see if they're editing from the same IP address? You can make one here: WP:RCU. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Zephram Stark sockpuppet

Starways Common (talk · contribs). Editing Guarana and Guaranine articles, frequented by recent sockpuppets TheCat'sMeow (talk · contribs), Buster Hawthorn (talk · contribs), etc. I guess now he thinks he's a chemist. His first article edit was to get involved in an edit war. Also note This post accusing us all of corruption, the same old ZS crap. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Confirmed by CheckUser. Also BBQ Cheddar Bunnies (talk · contribs). --JW1805 (Talk) 15:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser != big deal?

Looking at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser is says not to request a packet sniff on "throw-away" accounts. How does this square with something like Lolicon where we've got multiple socks very new users (Synergies (talk • contribs), Hentai-King (talk • contribs), MonstrousBone (talk • contribs)) but each only doing a few edits? Is this a fair call for check user now that there are more of the packet bloodhounds around, or not? - brenneman^{L} 04:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There's more to it. Who exactly are you suspecting the socket puppets belong to? Evidence? Violation? Using sockets in it itself is not against the policy. There has to be rules broken to request for a checkuser. --Jqiz 07:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a valid question, of course, and I should have made that more clear. The reason I didn't was that I'm not actually asking for a checkuser (which isn't done here) I'm asking if I should ask (over at Requests for CheckUser).

• If, for arguments sake only, these were your sockpuppets then you'd have broken the 3RR and would have violated a policy. In fact, I think that if any two of the three of these could be shown to be the same person, it would be a 3R violation.
• Again, not making accusations but we've got you reverting to the explicit image four times, fuzzie doing so once, Gmcfoley twice, Sn0rlax twice and the "very new users" six times.
• There are lots of possible combinations there that add up to 4 reverts, especially when noting that both you and Sn0rlax only started reverting after sprotect was applied.

Despite everything I've just said, I actually just wanted an opinion on the bounds in which check user was applied, as it's not something I'm terribly familiar with.

brenneman^{L} 07:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd wonder myself to be honest if I were in your position. I have nothing to hide. If you do want to ask for a usercheck, you'd have my blessing to go on with it. I believe the revert war was due to prior disagreements on the explicit picture, hence, no consensus. --Jqiz 20:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It is only pretty recently that we even started to formalize requests for checkuser. I think rules and practices are still a little bit fluid. In my opinion, in a case of lots of new accounts immediately joining a revert war, it is not even necessay to request checkuser, they can just be blocked unceremoniously as obvious socks, never mind who exactly is whose sock. I think people have better things to do than play Sherlock Holmes with sock artists. dab (ᛏ) 08:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

By doing this, you will ignore Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and all the precedent that goes with it. --Jqiz 11:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Jqiz, you're right that sockpuppets aren't prohibited. But using sockpuppets to be disruptive (in any manner of ways -- circumventing policies, manipulating consensus, etc.), then they may be blocked. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What precident? I have always blocked obvious disruptive sockpuppets as socks even if i'm not sure who they belong to. I have seen other admins do the same. Yes there are legitimate reasons for creating socks. Edit warring isn't one of them. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Then you may have a reason for the block for possibly violating the 3RR if you suspect it is under one person. Violation are per person. But, if a suspected socket jumps into the flay of a massive editting war, then is it really justified? A warning would have more merit than an outright block --Jqiz 20:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Attacked

It has just come to my notice that User:Jimididit has posted a rather nasty message about me at Talk:Football#Conduct_in_this_article., then followed up with nasty crossposts at Talk:Football (soccer), Talk:Rugby Union and Talk:American football. I have never edited any of these articles, so did not have them on my watchlist. I have never had any interaction with User:Jimididit on Wikipedia, except for being one of the many recipients of his petition to get his old username back. He/she has not approached me to discuss anything. Basically, I wouldn't known him/her from a bar of soap.

As far as I'm concerned, going around attacking and undermining people behind their backs is unacceptable. On further investigation I see that Jimididit seems to be on a mission to accuse every single Wikipedia administrator of abuse of powers, and I am merely one of his/her victims.

Jimididit's grief with me appears to be based on the fact that I blocked User:J is me for repeatedly vandalising User:Grant65's user page with bad faith suspected sockpuppet banners, while not taking any action against Grant65 for posting good-faith (and probably correct) suspected sockpuppet banners.

I would prefer not to act to defend myself, as I might over-react, and I'm sure any action I might take would only feed the troll. If anyone out there is prepared to review the situation and take appropriate action, I commend the situation to your care. Snottygobble 05:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be an extension of the unambiguously named thread "User:Jimididit trolling to be a dick" above, for the brave soul(s) looking to take this on. At the very least, the conduct, if not the issues themselves, seems to carry over. JDoorjam Talk 06:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cart before horse? I know I'm tired and my eyes are bleary, but isn't the unprovoked broadside on Snottygobble from before the bizzare complaint on Jimbo's talk page? I also note that the guy's talk page is still mightyly bare of "hey, be nice" messages. Perhaps we try to modify his behavior positivly, eh? - brenneman^{L} 06:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no; his comments to Jimbo predate his attack on me at Talk:Football, but nothing predates his attack on me in his very first edit. It has now become obvious to me that User:Jimididit is a sock/reincarnation of User:J is me, created for purposes stated in J is me's last edit. <sigh> the joys of administration.... Snottygobble 12:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Help needed, please

Information by Rimmers taken from User talk:Premeditated Chaos

Hi...if you have time, I'd like your help and assistance please!

I'm a relatively new member, so please bare with me :) I would like you help and/or advice in dealing with a certain user please. The user is question is Hotwiki. After making improvements to articles such as the Spice Girls (which I completely rewrote) and their members pages (Geri Halliwell, Melanie Brown, Victoria Beckham, Melanie Chisholm and Emma Bunton), its become very clear that hotwiki has a problem with me and constantly reverts any improvements I made to articles (best illustrated on the Geri Halliwell page, where he is also reverting edits made by other users).

There is a dispute over the Spice Girls discography; it was recently suggested that the Spice Girls library be merged with it and that the solo information included on the page be put on the girls own individual pages. The consensus agreement after discussions agreed with this view - with the sole exception of hotwiki, who seems to think he has some divine say over what does and does not go into the articles. And last night he made his objections personal, contravening wiki regulations on civility, in the Geri discussion page. This dispute has since spiralled and is effecting other pages. After discussions with other users on the best course of action, it was suggested that I should contact an admin to help resolve this childish situation - because quite frankly its petty and reflects very badly on Wikipedia.

Hotwiki is generally rude, arrogant and very hostile with a range of users - simply look at his discussion page and/or the additions he made to other people's discussion pages for evidence of this. His problem with me personally could well stem from outside of Wikipedia; I was a moderator on a large internet forum, which stemmed from a Spice Girls fan site. I don’t know what hotwiki's username is on the forum, but he has made it clear he was/is a member; so his hostility to me might stem from the fact I gave him an official warning or banned him whilst being a mod. Who knows. What is clear though is that he cannot continue the way he is acting because it reflects badly on this site and creates a negative and hostile environment.

Any help or advice you can offer would be greatly appreciated - and for now I'd like to keep this conversation on your discussion page (rather than mine) if you don’t mind. I am also going to contact one or two other users to see if they wish to make a contribution to this complaint, that way giving you more scope and different points of view. Thanks for you time - sorry to bother you over something so incredibly lame! Rimmers 01:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I second Rimmers' statement. Your help would be beneficial. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like the beginning of a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, and it seems that there is another party willing to endorse. Jkelly 18:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention on opening an RFC yet, because Hotwiki has made some fabulous contributions to Wikipedia, which includes categorization, creating new articles, and expanding to certain lengths. I merely wish for him to be warned or serve a short block for disrpution of a few policies for now. Perhaps an RFC will have to be opened eventually though, but certainly not yet. I don't wish to jump the bullet train. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible Lightbringer Sock

• Fyodor_Dos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps trying to reinsert "occult society" in Freemasonry but cannot support the claim on Talk page in any way but his opinion that "Freemasonry is a secret occult society and keep that hidden from society (seehere in lower part of section), and keeps adding unrelated "See also" links to the [Freemasonry]] page (such as "Essenes", and three different esoteric WP pages), and then reverts correction of them. Believed to be Lightbringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sock, so he should not be editing Freemasonry at all. He has also made unsourced edits to occult which had to be reverted. -- MSJapan 14:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved this from WP:AIV. Another admin there has already expressed doubts whether this is Lightbringer or not. I don't know that much about the Lightbringer case, so I'll leave this to those more familiar with the situation. - TexasAndroid 15:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the typical Lightbringer socks -- usually there's a whole chunk of material inserted. Account has been blocked for 3RR violations on Freemasonry though. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

And again. Kirill Lokshin 04:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the rhetoric is similar to Lightbringer, recent socks have shown a tendency towards learning from his mistakes, the line about those who are prepared to identify as Masons didn't quite get to the 'should be banned' stage, but pretty close and some of the commenting in talk pages clearly shows some familiarity with the various viewpoints and previous discussions. I'd say likely but not definitive at the moment.

Serial vandal 38.112.87.6 blocked for two months, second opinion requested

38.112.87.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) vandalised articles repeatedly despite {{returnvandal}} and {{test4}}. I blocked him for eight weeks after seeing that he had returned almost immediately after a 6-week block by Hall Monitor expired, and neither whois lookup nor a sample of his edit history indicated that I'd be causing collateral damage. I also left a link to my email as Hall Monitor did before. Nonetheless, as this is the first time I've blocked someone for a prolonged length of time, I'm checking here that this was the right thing to do. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though I am not an admin, I agree with the length of the block. --Zsinj^Talk 16:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Shared IP address? Did you check to see what it was before you blocked it? Secretlondon 16:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This ARIN WHOIS report says it's registered to "Performance Systems International Inc". That didn't seem to qualify as a shared IP from what I've seen of them. The earlier long-term block by Hall Monitor and the fact that I couldn't find any good edits made me more confident that I wouldn't be doing collateral damage. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently an ISP in North Virginia [75] Secretlondon 16:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack block

Benapgar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This one was a 31-hour block after one edit, which isn't usual, but it was really quite the edit [76] (warning: contains pierced penis picture) and doesn't really rate a 'warning.' I left a pointed comment about this on the bottom of his talk. Please keep an eye out for further spectacularly creative edits of this sort, and cattleprod as needed - David Gerard 17:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him for a month following his latest outburst. He has repeatedly been blocked for incivility and it is clear he has no intentions whatsoever of reforming. He's just getting even more vulgar and disruptive over time. Frankly, I think a one month block may be too short. Here's his latest: [77] [78] [79] [80] --Cyde Weys 17:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, this wouldn't be the first time he's been blocked for a month. --Cyde Weys 17:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh. After that, I'd be inclined to something similar - David Gerard 17:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

64.251.53.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) School ip Antonrojo 18:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

66.154.192.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) YASP (yet another school proxy) Antonrojo 18:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Zephram Stark

Zephram's latest sockpuppet Dirae (talk · contribs) is currently stalking my edits. Notice how his talk page was copied over from a previous sockpuppet Peace Inside (talk · contribs) (see here). Please block this account. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please block this guy. I don't like being called a vandal in the edit summaries of dozens of articles. --JW1805 (Talk) 19:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him. The first time I've stepped into this Zephram Stark mess. But the copying of the previous sockpupet's talk page made it so obviously a sock-puppet. - TexasAndroid 19:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. --JW1805 (Talk) 19:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks like ZS's list of socks has been growing endlessly, so I think it's time for an entry on him at Long term abuse. --TML1988 21:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Quadell block

I have blocked Quadell (talk · contribs) for making the same kinds of edits which Bobblewik has made in the past (the frequent delinking of links to years). He is fully aware of the controversy Bobblewik has caused with his edits and he knows that there is significant disagreement over the relevant section which he claims to be enforcing. Given this disagreement, I think that people should not make edits away from the status quo in regards to date links until collective consensus has been reached, deciding what our guidelines should be on this issue. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Talrias, as you know I very rarely undo other people's blocks, but I've undone this one because Quadell is one of our best editors and admins, and extremely reasonable, so I'm certain you can talk this issue through with him. I'm sorry to undo your block. I mean no disrespect by it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sarah, of all people I would have thought might unblock Quadell, you were probably near the very bottom, given our history. I'm disappointed you didn't ask me about it first. If you were to look at Quadell's talk page, you can see I was quite happy to unblock him if he promised to stop making those kinds of edits, at least until we come up with an acceptable compromise. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, Talrias. I don't like undoing other admin actions, but I felt this block was highly inappropriate, and you were arguably involved in the content dispute so that complicated matters. Moving on, I've posted a proposed compromise text for the MoS, which I'm hoping both sides might agree to. I'd appreciate your thoughts on it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What is going on? How is abiding by the policy of WP:DATE "disruptive"? If you want to change the policy on date links then do it the proper way, don't block people making edits that conform with the policy. --Cyde Weys 19:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, the manual of style is recommended style guideline, not a policy. Also, as someone who has contributed in the discussion on the style guideline yourself, you are well aware that there is significant disagreement over the appropriateness of the recommendation in question. Given this, making fast and frequent edits enforcing a style guideline across multiple articles is not just impolite but disruptive. This is why I blocked. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What? Last time I checked WP:CONTEXT has been active for awhile. There's no controversy here. Just like not every word in a sentence should be linked, not every occurrence of a date should be linked. The only reason some dates are currently linked is for preferences formatting (there's actually an ongoing feature request to get that fixed too). It's not controversial to clean up the clutter of unnecessary date links that don't contain enough information to work properly with date preferences formatting. --Cyde Weys 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

How am I supposed to discuss this with you if you do not even accept that there are people who disagree with you on this? You are presenting opinion as fact - and clouding the issue by suggesting it is about whether all dates should be linked. I don't think anyone is arguing for that. What I, and many others, want, is for articles to be treated on an article-by-article basis, with years linked to provide historical context for the events described in the article. I just saw Quadell delink, through the same script which Bobblewik used, every single date link on a historical list. I can't think of a more appropriate article to have links for years on. In any case, as I have argued on WP:DATE's talk page, people like finding out what else happened in the year in question. I am one of those people. What is the point of having an encyclopaedia on the web, with all the advantages of hyperlinks it gives us, if we do not utilise them? I don't really want to summarise and duplicate all the arguments made on the talk page, but there is disagreement on the issue, and I think Wikipedia is better served by deciding and adopting a sensible compromise than one group of people removing as many date links as they can find and ignoring the fact that other people disagree, and another group of people finding out that a frequently-used group of links are being removed, causing much frustration all around. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Talrias, contrary to your assertion above, we already have guidelines regarding dates, and that is that they should not be linked:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Avoid overlinking dates - this is hardly controversial. Also, was his behaviour that disruptive? Did you contact him before the blocking? I see no justification for blocking a longstanding editor in good standing on such dubious grounds, and I'm quite concerned about the apparent precipitousness of these actions. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don’t have an opinion on the date-linking issue one way or the other, but I am concerned with the blocking without warning of a longtime user and admin. Judging from Quadell's talk page, I don't believe his edits were disruptive enough to warrant a block (i.e., there aren't numerous messages there asking him to stop). Nor do I do see any evidence that you asked Quadell to stop before implementing the block—that, in my opinion, should have been the first step. —Wayward ^Talk 20:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

In reply to both Wayward and Jayjg, I blocked Quadell without asking he stop first on his talk page was that he is making edits exactly the same as Bobblewik (in fact, using the same script as Bobblewik used/uses). Bobblewik was blocked for making similar edits. I am confident that Quadell knows that Bobblewik was blocked for these edits, and he knows that there is significant disagreement about the issue. Given this, I felt my blocking was appropriate. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I also do not have an opinion either about linking dates, but I am surprised that Quadell was blocked over a minor issue like this without warning. Talrias, I think you have overstepped and quite poorly. Quadell has a long history of productive edits and has stated that he is manually checking every date reference according to the MOS. You should have brought this to WP:AN/I. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 20:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing the fact that Quadell was using the same script as Bobblewik used. As you can see by looking through the history of Bobblewik's talk page, they have collaborated on it. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Bobble was blocked for delinking dates -- that would be silly. I think he was blocked for running a bot. I know there is disagreement between you and the Manual of Style, but I didn't see that as a reason for me to change my editing. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Check out the feature request. --Cyde Weys 19:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Bobblewik was blocked for delinking dates, in (at least) one case for being rather fast at it. I don't think anyone has contended he is running a bot for some time (with the exception of Jimbo, though how he got the idea, I don't know). I also note that one of his critics who criticised his speed had edited faster than he did. I also note that Bobblewik requested at the time a statement of what speed was ok to edit at and got no reply. In other words his blocks were on a par with Quadell's, the only difference is that Bobblewik showed an incredible patience with being blocked, Quadell a merely credible patience. Rich Farmbrough 21:03 26 March 2006 (UTC).

I've proposed a compromise text for the MoS here. Comments would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, that request is irrelevant. Quadell was making changes to solitary year links which has no relation to date format preferences. Correct me if I'm wrong. Gflores ^Talk 21:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just linking to it because I mentioned it in one of my comments and wanted people to know what I was talking about. And it's a good proposal. --Cyde Weys 21:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If he wasn't warned, he shouldn't have been blocked, especially for changes so extremely unimportant to the encyclopedia. This block is very counterproductive. I would suggest Talrias find a few articles to write. Even if Quadell was going against a guideline, it should have been submitted to WP:AN/I to wait for other comments—or are there some pressing matters related to date formatting that I am not aware of? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-24 19:52

As for Quadell's changes... I almost always link the birth/death years in an article, as well as years for important events in the person's life. I've written over a thousand articles and have done this in every one. So, I would disagree with Quadell simply because I don't want to go back and unlink all of those dates :) If Quadell wants to delink them, feel free. It's not important, and does not warrant blocking a valuable contributor. Now, if Quadell has limited himself to making such minor edits, then I would suggest finding something more important to do; I see many of the MoS guidelines as "guidelines on starting an article" rather than "guidelines on fixing an article". — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-24

I did some digging around to find the basis for that section of the Manual of Style, to try and find some basis for the differing viewpoints we find ourselves presented with today. I found that it was originally added by, of all people, Bobblewik, back in mid-April, 2005, where he made an edit saying he was eliminating an inconsistency. He also added the text "Other date forms such as year only (e.g. 1981) should be treated like any other words and linked only if there is some particular relevance.", without mentioning this in the edit summary, nor discussing it on the talk page. A related issue was raised on the talk page, which can be seen in archive 17, however this mentions only the duplicate linking of years (i.e., where a year is linked more than once in an article). I believe this change should have been reverted and discussed on the talk page, especially since the edit summary does not mention this change.

Over time this gradually was changed by various people into the text we have today, as far as I can tell without much discussion, into requiring "special relevance" and a "strong reason" before linking a year. This is a good example of "creeping guidelines", where an important page has been modified slowly but surely over time into what its advocates can now declare are "uncontroversial" guidelines. Now, when people (such as myself) are questioning the guideline, I am being told "this is a part of the guideline, shut up and do something else". Well, I think that is appalling. There are only a few policies on Wikipedia which are not subject to change. I can count them on one hand, and this is definitely not one of them. I've tried to have a debate on this issue a number of times before, but it has always been the case that "the mos says this, end of discussion". Raul's 7th law, "[a]s time goes on, the rules and informal policies on Wikipedia tend to become less and less plastic and harder and harder to change", applies well here. This is the reason I suggested task forces - to make sure policies and guidelines are discussed openly, are always available for debate and are not subject to this gradual and incremental modification we've seen on this dates linking fiasco (note: I also wrote this on the proposed compromise page; it seemed appropriate in both places). Talrias (t | e | c) 23:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that wording in the guideline is supported by WP:CONTEXT. --Cyde Weys 23:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about the guideline. I care about its unimportance, and the amount of time being wasted on it. I suggest doing something more important, regardless of what the guideline says. If you want to incorrectly interpret that as "shut up and follow the guideline", feel free. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-25 01:09

Yet another sockpuppet of Zephram Stark

Sappho of the Far Hemisphere (talk · contribs) is picking up where prev sockpuppet Dirae (talk · contribs) left off: going through all my rvts of his previous sockpuppets. Someone please block this account. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if the 3RR applies when reverting banned users. I'm going to just go ahead and rvt his edits. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The 3RR does not apply in this case. Reverts of banned users or of pure vandalism are not subject to sanction. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Further proof that it is Zephram: He's using an image that he previously uploaded as Zephram. It appears he is now at Wikipeida Commons, and under the username Tim, has uploaded many of the images that were deleted from Wikipedia See here. Good Lord... --JW1805 (Talk) 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked. Between the image, and the fact that he started up right after Dirae was blocked... - TexasAndroid 22:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I indef blocked (so make sure they don't conflict) and tagged and protected both pages.Gator (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No conflict. Mine was indef as well. That's what happens to sockpuppet accounts of banned users. - TexasAndroid 22:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Is removing administratove tags considered vandalism?

User:Bonaparte removed the tag on his talkpage which read that he has been "blocked indefinitely" on Wiki. User:Irpen restored the tag by reverting the page and said that "removing administratove tags is vandalism." Is this really the case? Can't a user have the right to integrity on Wikipedia, or do we have to make the whole world know that they have been blocked? I understand why this is done to sex-offenders in the real world, but why must a user on Wikipedia be stamped with tags that says he has been blocked? This reminds me of the punishments of Medieval Age where offenders were ridiculed and embarrassed in public. --Candide, or Optimism 21:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Anittas, it is. I also find it laughable that you think this is to do with 'integrity'. What integrity is there in hiding something like that? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There is, because there's no reason to have the user feel emberrassed. Now you tell me why the tag is needed. --Candide, or Optimism 22:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The tag needs to remain and I have protected the talk page too so that it stays that way. He is a banned user and now has demosntrated he can't be trusted to even edit his own page. Unfortunate.Gator (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is the tag needed? --Candide, or Optimism 22:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I can think of several reasons. Warning users that any edits they come across by this user may be suspect, for one. Indicating to other users that Wikipedia volunteers have the means available to prevent disruption, for another. Certainly the word 'integrity' does not leap to the mind when considering sockpuppet farms. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's wrong to punish offenders and use them as an example to scare off other potential offenders. As I said...Medieval. --Candide, or Optimism 22:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the tag's not as important as his request to be unblocked - he just made one on his talk page, but no one seems to have responded. --Latinus 23:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

He's made loads of requests to be unblocked - via "friends" etc. It's not going to happen any time soon. Secretlondon 15:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a 'scare tactic' at all. Rather, as has been said above, I think it's simply a reference for other users as to how seriously to take that user's edits/activity, and can be useful if a similarly named sockpuppet presents itself. --InShaneee 17:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblock  Bonaparte 

Bonaparte has more than 4000 edits. He was blocked for more than 3 months now. I request an unblock for him.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.106.70.104 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, that's not gonna happen. In fact, I don't see it happening for years, if ever. --TML1988 06:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Zephram Stark sockpuppet

Ipvirg48of1767 (talk · contribs). Same deal as above. Now this is starting to get ridiculous... --JW1805 (Talk) 22:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, it's time for an entry on ZS at Long term abuse. --TML1988 01:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Now this is one of those times where I wish I were an admin...if I were, this account would've been blocked already. Can someone block for me? --TML1988 06:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I am among the least able to recognize his sockpuppets, so I could well be wrong, but how about 61.58.53.139 (talk · contribs)? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

User: IP Address

User: IP Address keeps on making personal attacks on my talk page.^[81] I warned him on his talk page about the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, but he kept up, anyway. We're having a dispute over an article I wrote, "spic". I kept most of his changes to the entry, even though they're unsourced (my sources are listed at the bottom of the entry) and I think, somewhat irrelevant. Now, he's edit warring with me, even though his version deletes a lot of information. (He says that etymology is irrelevant to an article about a word.)^[82] His current version is unacceptable because it deletes a lot of helpful information and it's repetitive. Thanks.--Primetime 22:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

See here...User_talk:Will_Beback#Spic IP Address 23:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a heated content dispute. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a waste of time for you lot. IP Address 23:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why all of his changes should be kept, but none of mine should. He hasn't compromised with me one bit and he's made personal attacks on me. His behavior seems very unacceptable to me.--Primetime 23:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you want the article merely to reflect your Wiktionary approach. User:Will Beback has already commented on this and has instructed you what is the proper course of action. It's not merely me that you are running into problems with. Perhaps you should WP:AGF? IP Address 23:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback has not commented on the matter. Please, someone intervene! Help!--Primetime 23:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You want somebody to help in your smear campaign against me, is that it? IP Address 23:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence to back up your claims. This is remarkable! Can someone please intervene!--Primetime 23:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked both Primetime and IP Address for 12 hours for violating 3RR and appealed to them to come back to this issue with cool heads when their blocks expire. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I certainly haven't commented on this matter. Thanks to Sam giving this edit war a timeout. -Will Beback 23:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Just for the record, User:IP Address has made what I consider a personal attack on me at Talk:Bronze_race.--Rockero 07:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess when this guy attacks my country, Wikipedia doesn't care either? Why doesn't he just concede he was wrong in the first place? Nothing else would have gotten carried away. He wants to pretend his insincere acts are quickly forgotten, by digging into my past. IP Address 07:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Poliomyelitis

Could Poliomyelitis be semi-protected please? There is a spate of Vitamin C from IP addresses, at least if they are User IDs there is a little consistency in the trail. Midgley 23:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem in need of sprotection and has cooled off today. The Land 19:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Benapgar indefinitely blocked.

I have indefinitely blocked Benapgar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for incivility and disruption. As those who are familiar with his case (or his block log) know, Benapgar has had a detailed history of disruption and obscene personal attacks against other editors, especially as regards to the article Intelligent design. There is currently a WP:RFAR filed against him for this reason, which has not (at the time of this writing) been opened.

Some recent diffs, for which he was recently issued his second 1 month block (which I have extended to an indefinite block):

• [83] "You are a fucking tool."
• [84] "How about this: Jesus H. Motherfucking Cocksucking Christ you are a Goddamned fucking idiot. How's that, shitfuck?" Also includes an image of a Prince Albert piercing on another user's talk page.

I don't see any need to waste the time of the Arbitration Committee with this user; in my opinion, he should be considered banned from the English Wikipedia. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur. No need to waste the ArbCom's time with this one. --Cyde Weys 00:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Good call, Ryan. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I heartily agree with this move, which, in my opinion, is what the Arbitration Committee would have decided anyway, and I have suggested to the rest of the Committee that we avert the case despite the number of accept votes it had before this. Dmcdevit·t 00:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

As I have noted in private, I endorse this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

As do I. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ambi is revert-warring

Ambi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is mass reverting edits by Quadell. This already happened a few weeks back with Bobblewik. I don't think massive revert-warring is appropriate behavior for an admin. Also note that Ambi's edits are in direct opposition to the established guideline. --Cyde Weys 04:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

They should both stop it. Quadell is fully aware of the situation and the fact that Bobblewik has collected escalating blocks for exactly the same editorial behaviour, having recently collected one himself. I am minded to block him likewise. Ambi should should stop reverting, because one crusade is as bad as the next. -Splash^talk 05:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, you know full well that the section in question has been under debate for several months now. Please stop selectively ignoring some of the facts of this situation. It's duplicitous. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with revert-warring being a bad thing. --Cyde Weys 18:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I suppose you'll also inculpate Vsmith for the same action - mass reverting - of Ambi's edits? Talrias (t | e | c) 18:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring is wrong, whoever does it. And this is a bloody stupid thing to revert war over. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

VSmith reverted or rolled back four edits, that had been made to articles he watches and was happy about. Ambi rolled back several hundred edits without checking them. Ambi has done this numerous times, and has had many people complain about it on her talk page (including me). Ambi is using her admin powers in a content dispute, as is Talrias. Ambi has also promised to revert any edits of this nature made by Bobblewik and I think Quadell. Yes there are arguments on both sides of the dispute, but using Admin tools in a content dispute is even worse than the edit war in the first place. Ambi and Talrias have also blocked users over this content dispute, which is in my opinion, plain wrong. Rich Farmbrough 22:00 26 March 2006 (UTC).

Instantnood, post Arbcom

Instantnood has now had his second Arbcom case finalized. Since it was finalized, Instantnood has continued the exact same behavior he's been restricted from doing: edit warring over naming issues and making POV re-orgs (and edit warring with those that change it).

Of 73 article space edits, 53% of them(!!) are the prohibited behavior. Earlier today, he managed to rack up almost 30 reverts in a single hour of editing. On most of the pages he's edited, his revert wars take up the last several weeks (or months!) of page history.

So, can I ask an admin to take action? You can see a breakdown of the edits on this subpage: User:SchmuckyTheCat/Mick Jagger. Last few times I've reported his warring the response was crickets. Now that Arbcom had to rule AGAIN that he's a disruptive revert warrior...

SchmuckyTheCat 09:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Looked over his edits and I agree with you. Blocked for 48 hours. Ashibaka tock 00:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

IP Address 24.199.123.229

This IP address has continuosly been adding spam links to certain Tool related pages(10,000 Days and Tool (band). They have been warned and I think it's about time to consider a block. Hope I got this in the right place! hellboy 09:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible Gastrich Sock

User:70751 has a short and suspicious edit history, consisting solely of edits to Gastrich's userpage, and an unaccredited Christian College. Sockpuppetry is in direct violation of the terms of his arbitration. Is this worthy of a CheckUser request? Hexagonal 10:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him. Typical Gastrich sock behavior. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

User:BenJohansenRulz|BenJohansenRulz

Is there any way someone can stop this user from reverting my Bridges In Connecticut page? Doesn't 3RR rule apply here? Im gettin tired of dealing with this guy.Robot Builder 10:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

None of User:BenJohansenRulz, Bridges In Connecticut, Bridges in Connecticut, or User:Robot Builder exist or have ever existed. Can you be just a bit clearer? Eugene van der Pijll 12:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. User:Robot Builder does in fact exist, as he posted the above while logged in. Bridges in Connecticut does not currently exist, and does not seem to have ever existed. Can't find User:BenJohansenRulz in the log, either. —Encephalon 12:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize to Robot Builder for my inaccurate statement. Eugene van der Pijll 12:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That's very nice of you Eugene, and I'm sure the user appreciates it. But to the issue at hand, he seems to have made only one edit, the one to this board, so I'm rather afraid I don't have any idea what the complaint is about. The toolserver seems to be down so I can't check if he had made deleted edits. —Encephalon 13:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we just got punk'd. Ashibaka tock 00:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

He's at it again! I am no longer going to contribute to your website until you remove him!Robot Builder 02:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't contributed to this website yet...except here. --InShaneee 02:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I took care of it myself!Robot Builder 03:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have indefinetly blocked this user for trolling. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot not reviewing edits

Please block User:Smackbot.

Not reviewing every edit as required by AWB. Blindly piped UK and US in the List of all two-letter combinations.

Did that repeatedly on the same page, after being reverted, and after notes on the talk page. AWB doesn't work well unmonitored.

Now, it just unlinked "max may med" to "max May med" at List of three-letter English words. Again, AWB doesn't work well unmonitored. And there's simply no reason what-so-ever to unlink months! Or words that might be months!

--William Allen Simpson 00:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Heck, it's worse than that! Reviewing the contributions (that it's making every 6 seconds), I see that it moves the trailing ]]s to s]] on piped links. That's against Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Form.

--William Allen Simpson 00:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting the bot's owner? Hermione1980 00:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in the past! And posted on the WT:B page. --William Allen Simpson 00:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

But you posted on WT:B before my user page. I resolved the then issue (I thought). And now you have posted on about half a dozen admin pages without coming back to me, when I was quite prepared to bend over backwards to accomodate you, and am still prepared to sort out any difficulty, fix any one off errors and scan for and revert any systemic that are confirmed to be wrong. I don't see how I alienated you here. Rich Farmbrough 17:57 26 March 2006 (UTC).

And Slim Virgin blocked it yesterday --William Allen Simpson 01:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

But two minutes later he said:

"Actually Rich, now that I check the edits more carefully, it seems only to be delinking days and months, which so far as I know, no one objects to, so I'm going to unblock it. My apologies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)"

I have blocked SmackBot for three hours and notified Rich Farmbrough on his talk page. Hermione1980 01:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! --William Allen Simpson 01:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm off to bed now, so I hereby give any admin permission to unblock SmackBot if Rich Farmbrough gives assurance that he has fixed these issues, or if said admin feels I have blocked in error. Hermione1980 02:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I did unblock the account but only to extend the block.Geni 02:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Geni did the right thing, there's no point putting a short block on a bot. I will be back later to discuss. Rich Farmbrough 13:42 26 March 2006 (UTC).

Posting of personal information

This edit seems to me to contravene the "Posting of personal information" section of Wikipedia:Harassment. I'm inclined to permablock user:Femmina over this; this user appears to have few if any constructive wikipedia edits, and some downright unacceptable ones [85] [86]. Opinions? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether a permablock is warranted, but, as loath as I am to stand up for a GNAA member, I would at least temporarily block him until this is resolved. If this isn't considered personal information, it's certainly darn close. --InShaneee 01:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That first edit does look inappropriate and was removed. The other two, however, are ancient by Wikipedia standards. Barring future incidents, I'm not sure this is a huge deal (and a permablock seems like overkill). And if it makes you feel any better, InShaneee, you're not standing up for a GNAA member, you're standing up for evenhandedness, equal treatment, and WP:AGF. Or something. JDoorjam Talk 02:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Another bit of info in Femmina's defense: after I removed the section in question for being largely irrelevant to the article, Femmina came by and removed the corresponding URL at the bottom, which I'd missed, which indicates to me that, at the very least, Femmina is not simply looking to attack, and perhaps didn't understand why posting pic links from articles like that should be avoided; I really think we should just AGF, instruct Femmina not to post photos corresponding to editors' real-life personae, and call this "resolved". JDoorjam Talk 02:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I hate to admit it, but now that I see the dates on those older edits, and considering this user's never been warned, I have to agree. Let's just explain to him what was wrong about what he did, and see how things go from there. Who wants to take a crack at it? --InShaneee 02:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

IP vandal

Here's an interesting situation. 152.163.100.197 (talk · contribs) is an AOL proxy, and all said address seems to do is collect warnings, as a look at the talk page will illustrate. Is there a policy regarding blocking proxy addresses in a situation where all it seems to be used for is vandalism? There are other edits on the IP, but they seem to be nothing more substantial than simple wikilinking. MSJapan 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that's exactly the problem. An AOL IP can be used by ANY AOL user, even the productive ones. No matter how much vandalism we get from them (and, as everyone knows, it's a whole lot of a whole ton, to put it lightly), we have to stick with short-term blocks. --InShaneee 02:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible return of Willy?

User:GarageDoor just edited Talk:Humour with {{move}}, suggesting that the page be renamed "Humour on wheels!" [87]. I gave the user a {{test2}}. S/he has no other edits, but I'm mildly concerned that this user is another Willy on Wheels incarnation. I'm not totally sure what to do, though, so I thought I'd post it here and let someone who's got a better idea of how to handle this user decide if anything further needs to be done. Thanks. Hbackman 02:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably an inpersonator. Willy's MO has been largly neutralised these days.Geni 02:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well at Meta we had a massive attack the other day... no "on wheels" notes but still... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There are other page move vandles.Geni 03:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

User Evading Block

There are three user pages being edited by a single user- User:213.121.151.142, which is currently the subject of a 48 hour block; User:Ask me, and User:Kingofspades. Given that they have all been editing the James Blunt article, and the last entry on the talk page of User:213.121.151.142 celebrates the further opportunity to vandalize that article, I suspect they are all the same person. Risker 05:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFCU. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I have forwarded this to the correct page. Risker 05:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If it's blatantly obvious that someone is a sockpuppet, don't bother with RFCU. Just do what's necessary and take it further only if there is a complaint. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Tammy I Had Better NOT See YOU With ANOTHER MAN!!

I'm about to permablock this user based on their username, which appears to combine a personal attack with an attempt to engage in personal communications through Wikipedia - any objections? bd2412 T 05:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

None at all. Just do it. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Go right ahead *thumb up*. Good find. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Turns out there are many similar ones on today's block log. bd2412 T 05:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, I loved that username... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)