I've noticed that just after a one month ban from Elvis Presley and Memphis Mafia articles for violating his probation, Onefortyone has gone staight back to tendentiously adding the same poorly-referenced claims that got him banned before: [1], [2]--Count Chocula 02:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly not violating my probation. As everybody can see, my contributions are well sourced, as I have cited many independent sources in the text. To my mind, user Count Chocula simply endeavors to suppress information he doesn't like. Significantly, this is the same strategy multi-hardbanned user Ted Wilkes had used in the past to denigrate my contributions. But this it not the way it works here. Onefortyone 18:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually Onefortyone has just reintroduced precisely the same sleaze that's discussed in Talk:Elvis Presley#Continued deliberate distortions by User on probation, Onefortyone, naming as its source a dodgy article in that renowned scholarly journal (not!) Playboy. The dodginess is discussed in the Talk page. Quote from the RfAr: Onefortyone is placed on Wikipedia:Probation with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research. This "information" (to describe it charitably) is poorly sourced. -- Hoary 09:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong, Hoary. All information I have included in the Elvis Presley and Memphis Mafia articles is well sourced and based on several independent sources. See [3] and [4]. As for the Playboy article, its co-author is reputed Elvis biographer Alanna Nash. Therefore, I do not think that information from this article is poorly sourced. However, this is not the only source I have used. As everybody can see, I have quoted from books by Peter Guralnick, Earl Greenwood, Patrick Humphries, Peggy Lipton, Albert Goldman, Jerry Capeci, etc., and from a Rolling Stone article. It should also be noted what administrator Stifle said on his talk page: "I don't think he's disrupting the article, inserting poorly-sourced information, or being aggressive," as User:Count Chocula has claimed. See [5]. Significantly, Count Chocula is one of the very few users who repeatedly deleted new paragraphs I have written. See [6], [7], [8], [9]. Onefortyone 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just that the Count is one of the few people who has the stamina to keep up with these readditions of tittle-tattle to articles on the obsessions of decades-old tabloids. (I used to try to keep up myself, but got bored, as the sex life, if any, and drug life, if I may call it that, of Presley was of even less interest to me than his music was.) Anyway, what's at issue is neither the Count's motivation or material attributed to most of the authors listed above; it's instead titillating tidbits attributed to a single unnamed article in an unspecified issue of Playboy: (i) why should we believe this; (ii) what relevance does it have to the subject of the article even if true; and (iii) even if it's credible and relevant, what significance does it have? -- Hoary 03:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The article has been written by Byron Raphael with reputed Elvis biographer Alanna Nash. It is entitled "In Bed with Elvis" and appeared in November 2005 in Vol. 52, Iss. 11, of Playboy, p.64-68, 76, 140. It clearly shows that Elvis actually was not the womanizer and sex symbol many people belonging to the world-wide Elvis industry still wish to suggest. The problem is that there are a few Elvis fans who endeavor to suppress critical voices from the Wikipedia article, although the material has been published in books and articles. One of these people was User:Ted Wilkes who is now blocked for one year. Count Chocula and another anonymous user (see [10], [11], [12]) seem to follow his footsteps, as they are deleting well-sources references which are not in line with their personal opinion. It should be noted that there are statements in books by Priscilla Presley, Suzanne Finstad, Peggy Lipton and others in support of what has been written in the Playboy article. A Wikipedia article is not a fan site. It should give a balanced view of the star, his life, his personal relationships and his music. Significantly, Hoary is calling me "dread 141" on the User talk:DropDeadGorgias page claiming, without evidence, that he has "a hunch that a lot of the quoting by 141 is highly selective (or worse)" (although I have given the exact page numbers for my quotes) and that he "can't assume good faith" (see [13]), simply because my contributions are not in line with his positive view of Elvis. Onefortyone 16:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Putting up for review a block I just made.

These two users have been waging a fairly heated war across the WP:CFD pages for a couple of weeks now. I came into the middle of this trying to sort through a particular set of CFD nominations in which both had commented extensively. There's a lot more heated discussion between them, but the part that caught my eye was that Conradi regularly creates diminuative names for those he deals with. For some, this may not be a big deal. For Simpson, it is a very big deal. Conradi calls Simpson "Willy". Simpson has expressed that he finds this extreamly offensive. [14] and [15] show spots where Simpson has protested the name.

I gave Conradi a warning on his talk page not to refer to Simpson like this any more, given how offensive Simpson was finding it. Conradi and I went back and forth a bit about WP:CIVIL, and Conradi's use of diminuatives. In the process he came up with a diminuative for me as well (Texy) ^_^;; Finally, within the last hour, Conradi posted a lengthy commentary on his user page about me and Simpson. In it he repeatedly used the "Willy" name for Simpson. Viewing this as flagrantly violating WP:CIVIL despite being warned against exactly this type of action, I have given Conradi a 24 hour block for the continuing WP:CIVIL violations.

And none of this includes the fact that Conradi repeatedly calls Simpson a "liar" in almost any way he can without ever actually using the word "liar".

Anyway, Despite the fact that I am fairly well targetted in Conradi's user page commentary, I still consider myself an uninvolved admin, given that my only involvement has been totally on the technical side of the CFDs these two have been warring over. I really do not care about the outcome of any of their CFDs. I'm involved to the extent of warning Conradi, and following through on the warning when it was all but ignored. Yeah, Conradi skewered me pretty well in his commentary on hir user page, but if criticising an admin for giving out warnings was all it took to get the admin considered "involved", then the edit warriors would quickly rule the project.

I welcome review of my actions here, given that this is my first forray into this type of block. - TexasAndroid 19:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocking for incivility in the hopes the two will calm down and see the error of there ways? Sounds pretty clean, cut, and perfectly justified to me. --InShaneee 20:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well handled, Texy! Bishonen | talk 03:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

Article and talk page have been under attack since February 8 [16] by various users under different accounts. Current attack consists of disruptive behavior by Simonapro (talk · contribs) removing unsigned signatures from talk page and reverting any and all changes made to the main article page (Somewhere around 10 reverts in 24 hrs so far), including the repeated addition of unreliable content (see WP:RFC/SOC) and the removal of all dispute/maintenance/citation tags. User has been informed of Wikipedia policies on talk page but simply blanks his talk page. Mediation cabal case opened: 2006-04-20 Heaven's Stairway. —Viriditas | Talk 22:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Archive of warnings made to user talk page here. As of April 23, user refuses to sign posts on article talk page, refuses to stop making personal attacks, refuses to describe a dispute before adding a dispute tag, and refuses to use edit summaries. —Viriditas | Talk 11:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The personal attacks, reverts, user talk page blankings, have now progressed to spamming and using the article talk page as a soapbox and threatening to bring in other users from an external web forum [17], which I translate as a threat to use sockpuppets. I am requesting administrator intervention. User has been informed and repeatedly warned about Wikipedia policies for more than a month. —Viriditas | Talk 19:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I blocked for 15 minutes. Munckin (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) was trying to "speedy keep" an AfD by blanking it, remving the tags from the article and deleting from the AfD log, but due to a proxy config issue (or maybe a browser JS plugin) his edits resulted in single quotes being escaped, which as you can imagine did nothing to enhance the pages concerned. I have left a note on his Talk page explaining this and fixed today's AfD log, if somoene would like to check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 21 and make sure I didn't miss any I'd appreciate it. Thanks Just zis Guy you know? 10:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the accounts Mackensen blocked through his log, you will see that VaughanWatch's socks tend to have 50-100 edits (mostly minor copyedits) all on the same day, then they go dormant until they start posting on Simon AfDs or other Vaughan issues. Munchkin looks very much the same. Thatcher131 11:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Also blocked by Curps indef...--Adam ^(talk) 11:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. I have been largely a spectator in the Vaughan Wars to date - I can see why Mackensen is on a mission here. Just zis Guy you know? 12:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as you're collecting sockpuppets, toss Breadsbread (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) into the stack -- in addition to taking up where Munckin left off [18], also tried to report JzG for "3RR violations", [19], munging up the page in the process. --Calton | Talk 13:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Indef-blocked by Curps. Has anyone got the IP address to block the open proxy? Just zis Guy you know? 13:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've submitted an RFCU. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, already been dealt with. I'll go get some sleep. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Talks_to_birds Would like clarification regarding a banning he received when he was attempting to prove user Sint_Holo was a sockpuppet of Jeff Merkey. An Admin banned him indefinately. His talk page requests information on this ban. Thank you. --Kebron 17:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the block is justified, seeing as this user made it pretty clear that his sole purpose here was to humiliate Merkey. Regardless of Merkey's own conduct, that is not acceptable behavior. --InShaneee 19:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This was one of his first edits. Things haven't improved since then. --Tony Sidaway 19:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a better edit to look at to see his purpose in being here. At the time that User:Talks_to_birds began to edit, Merkey still believed that I was John Sage, someone he had previously sued. I emailed Mr. Sage to warn him that activities on Wikipedia might spill over and affect him. He never responded to me, except to show up one day editing in such a way that even a blind Wiki admin should be able to recognize his identity, deliberately trying to draw Merkey's attention away from other editors, myself in particular. Although we have never spoken about it, it was always clear to me what John Sage/Talks_to_birds was trying to do, whether anyone else appreciated it or not. — MediaMangler 02:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

He was, then. editing Wikipedia in order to further his real world dispute with Jeff Merkey. That isn't what Wikipedia is intended for. It's an encyclopedia, not a flame forum. --Tony Sidaway 20:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Conflict in the fantasy world of Wikipedia was threatening to have a real world affect upon him, but rather than act to defend himself (which he could have done quite simply by requesting that I identify myself to Merkey) he came here to help defend Wiki. He did nothing but "Merkey nonsense", which is to say he tracked the sockpuppets of a banned user. If that is an undesirable activity then most of the Wiki admins have been guilty of it at one time or another. What made it grounds for an indefinite block in this particular case? No one ever suggested his activities were inappropriate (other than Merkey) until you lowered the boom. Why was there no warning, no discussion? This is not just idle curiosity. Editors really need to know if we should stop trying to identify sockpuppets of all banned users or if only Merkey enjoys such a protected status. — MediaMangler 00:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm getting a little too involved over at Ra'anana and I'd appreciate another administrator coming in and laying down the law. The situation is this: a certain paragraph of the article is being aggressively defended by User:Israelbeach. The user has enlisted a sockpuppet, User:Davidstone, and a probable sockpuppet, User:Bonnieisrael, to show "support" and to circumvent 3RR. This person has also erased a third user's comments from the talk page of the article. (Take a look at the history of Talk:Ra'anana). I've already listed the article itself on RfC, but I think it is also time to set limitations on User:Israelbeach. However, I would rather another administrator did this, so that it does not appear to be a personal vendetta. Thank you. --Woggly 20:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm dissapointed that nobody has stepped in to help. This user has apparantly been using wikipedia to publicise himself, his business and his custody battles with his wife: his tactics (sockpuppets, erasing other users' comments, threatening legal action) are the tactics of a bully. I feel uncomfortable dealing with him on my own because I've already been accused of all sorts of personal interests. But if no other administrator feels that this justifies action - well, just one more thing to contribute to my rising sense that I don't belong here. --Woggly 06:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

After a few interactions with those editors on [[Talk:Ra'anana], it's pretty clear what's going on. I've attempted to engage Israelbeach in dialogue, and he seems totally focused on his own agenda. I've politely suggested to him that Wikipedia is not a soapbox; we'll see if he understands. He's pretty disingenuous; he points to an article he wrote himself as evidence that what he's saying is noteworthy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping in. If Bonnieisrael (talk · contribs) is indeed a sockpuppet of Israelbeach (talk · contribs)'s, as I suspect, then this user - who has confessed to being Joel Leyden - has already violated 3RR on Ra'anana. I think Nancetlv (talk · contribs) and Achlasaba (talk · contribs) are probably sockpuppets too. Notice the articles that Israelbeach et al have started, all seem to be about his personal friends and/or employees of his agency, the Israel News Agency: Joel Leyden, Charley Levine, Sara Silber, Chaim Emmett and Archie Granot. For the record, I live and work in Israel, and have worked as a journalist for Ha'aretz and for IDF radio (Galatz) - I've never heard of the Israel News Agency or any of these people before. In my opinion, none of them are notable enough to merit Wikipedia articles (several of these articles have in fact been nominated for deletion, but given benefit of doubt). I find Israelbeach's conduct on Wikipedia distasteful to say the least, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks he should be discouraged. --Woggly 17:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Israelbeach (talk · contribs) seems to be trying to get the benefits of a legal threat without actually making one. I can't decide; is this a legal threat? I'd appreciate an opinion from someone uninvolved. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That one of those on-the-line calls, but I'd consider threatening to make a legal threat (what's going on here) the same thing as a legal threat itself. --InShaneee 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but I'm already involved with this uglitude. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Given his clear awarness of the policy and his apparent intent to get as close to the line as he could, I'm blocking him for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

A user notable for causing trouble with the articles relating to the genre "Gothic Metal" (Leyasu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) and is currently banned for a week, for breaking ArbCon parole for the 5th time [20]... has recently as yesterday, been found "highly likely" of using sockpuppets before,[21] seems to have returned using 81.157.88.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to disrupt an article, evading their block. The IP is also significantly similar to ones previously shown to be "highly likely" a sock of this user.[22]

First removed the genre "Gothic Metal".. from the "Nightwish" band page [23]

Which is trademark editing of Leyasu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

And then proceded to re-add POV information to the article Nu metal, while refusing to discuss the changes after been asked, not only once, but 3 times... I presume its an attempt to bait me into breaking the 3RR? [24]

Could an admin take a look at this vandalism in proccess, and sort the sock out.. and perhaps semi-protect the article? Thanks, it would be appreciated. - Deathrocker 01:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker after being banned for a month for vandalising the Nu Metal article, went straight back after his block and vandalised it again changing it back to the version he last did before his block was imposed

Then he starts accusing Leyasu who i am not, of doing things he hasnt done, which is stupid, because i edit Wikipedia on a lot of different adresses and do lots of good work, and ive seen the vandalising of Deathrocker

I also know that Leyasu has a page of his user page detailing all of Deathrockers vandalism and that Deathrocker has vandalised Leyasus user page more than once

Also i changed the Nightwish article, not Leyasu, because someone vandalised it after it being a featured article

Deathrocker is a vandal, and should simply be ignored as he vandalised the article Nu Metal 4 times today

I've went ahead and protected the page, since all anyone was doing here was reverting. Hopefully, now, you two can work this out on the talk page. For the record, though, I would be curious to see the results of a checkuser on that IP (and the one that posted above me, if it's not the same one.) --InShaneee 16:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• 64.228.150.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has just made the same vandalism edit on my talk page that has previously been reverted today three seperate times. The vandalism was done the previous times by admitted socks of User:JohnnyCanuck, can someone please revert it? Thanks - pm_shef 01:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Note, he also vandalised User:Theonlyedge's talk page. pm_shef 01:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked the ip for a month. Looked like you had already reverted it when I checked. Syrthiss 16:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• 64.231.173.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) also seems to be another (bringing the count to 52 I believe). Check his contribs, they're doing the same talk page blankings that the other socks did. - pm_shef 01:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for a month as well. --Syrthiss 02:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Freestyle.king (talk · contribs) had received permission to change his user name to Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs). However, he continued to claim ownership of User:Freestyle.king and, IMO, used it impermissibly to soapbox. Prior to my being aware of the situation, admin User:Jiang changed User:Freestyle.king to a redirect to User:Bonafide.hustla, which Bonafide.hustla then changed back to its soapboxing content, so I re-redirected it and protected it. This drew an objection from him. When I subsequently requested help from User:Essjay (who approved the user name change), he suggested that I asked for help here. Here's the exchange from User talk:Nlu:

A request for unprotection of my userpage is requested on the ground that there is no violation of wikipedia regulations. Please cite the regulations violated before protecting any userpage. In addition, even if you decide to decide to revert, please do not delete any contents on the userpage. --Bonafide.hustla 01:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Freestyle.king is no longer your user page, and therefore there is no ground for you to continue to maintain it. Either you are switching to a new user name or you are not; you can't do both. Note that User:Bonafide.hustla has not been protected. --Nlu (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

there is still no ground of protecting it since i already made it clear on User:Freestyle.king talk page that I am switching my name. In addition, you decided to delete the content (why is this page black) of User:Freestyle.king 's userpage--Bonafide.hustla 02:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me repeat: you have no right to maintain two user pages. I am going to call User:Essjay's attention to what's going on, and I don't believe that he'll sanction this, either. --Nlu (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

ok i got your point (although Freestyle.king is a defunct userpage that has no value of existence). but you still need to need to revert the contents on my user page to it's original status, instead of simply leaving it blank and protect it.--Bonafide.hustla 04:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The redirect will only work if there is no other content on the page -- and it should be redirected. --Nlu (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not edit anything on the original userpage since it is now a defunct page no longer in function. The only thing I did was to remove linking it to my new userpage, so I do not understand the accusation of soapboxing--Bonafide.hustla 04:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It should link to your new userpage, so I interpret the reverting it back to the past content (which was soapboxing, permissible soapboxing or not at that point) as impermissible soapboxing. --Nlu (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And here's the exchange from User talk:Essjay: I see that you permitted Freestyle.king to change his user name to Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs), which is probably a good thing. However, he proceeded to try to maintain two user pages (User:Freestyle.king and User:Bonafide.hustla, using the former as a soapboxing page. When I redirected User:Freestyle.king to User:Bonafide.hustla (which he had blanked) and protected the page in light of his soapboxing, he objected. (See User talk:Nlu.) I don't believe that the name change permits him to continue to maintain an old user page for soapboxing purposes. Please look into the situation. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

All I did was perform the request; I don't really know anything about the situation other than that he requested a change, and I clicked the buttons. If he's putting content on a page that doesn't belong to him anymore (as much as any userpage belongs to any of us), then post a note to ANI discussing the situation and asking for feedback. I don't really feel comfortable handling the situation, as I honestly have no idea of what the situation is. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not edit anything on the original userpage since it is now a defunct page no longer in function. The only thing I did was to remove linking it to my new userpage, so I do not understand the accusation of soapboxing. Also note that Jiang was the one that re-direct the two userpages, not Nlu. Multiple administrator accounts (sockpuppets) are never allowed on wikipedia.--Bonafide.hustla 04:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Any help/advice would be greatly needed. To be honest, while I have not (and probably should not) take any punitive actions against Freestyle.king/Bonafide.hustla for outlandish accusations (such as my being a sockpuppet of Jiang or, even more wildly, as a sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels), I do want advice on what to do further with this user, in addition to what to do with this current situation. --Nlu (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Since then, he wrote this comment:

thank you for the clarification.--Bonafide.hustla 06:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll hope that this is the end of it, but this might be a vain hope. Advice is still appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My immediate read on the situation is that you are correct: moving from one name to another but maintaining the original is a misuse of userspace: either he's using the name or he's not, and if he's not, then using the userspace to post, well, anything, goes against the tenet that Wikipedia is not MySpace. I'm not clear what this user means when he says "the only thing I did was to remove linking (the old userpage) to my new userpage," when he pretty clearly reposted what was up before. But whatever: I don't think this is worth getting too worked up about especially as it looks like it might just go away on its own. I think you're right in not reacting to the suggestions that you're anyone's sockpuppet (though admin actions are preventative, not punitive, right?) My conclusion would be to keep the redirect, though if he requests that the User:Freestyle.king page not redirect but instead be deleted altogether, eh, I don't see any huge problem with that. JDoorjam Talk 17:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This admin has twice reverted without discussion except for an edit summary stating “rv; this is just an attempt to add POV”. She objects to criticisms being added to the article and she seems to object to introduction of subheaders which make the article easier to read. [25] [26] I’d be grateful if someone could take a look at her behaviour. Mccready 08:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that User:McCready has been a prolific POV warrior during his/her short tenure here on wikipedia and has shown him\herself to be very difficult to work with. I would contend that Slim's actions were completley justified.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Try to focus on the question rather than making slurs, shall we? Mccready 08:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how my comment constitued a "slur". Whether or not Slimvirgin was justified is central to your accusation. And your attitude as an editor needs to be shown in order for this to be established.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Your allegation is that I am a POV editor and that is sufficient justification for SV revert. Not very logical, even if you allegation has merit. What you need to argue is why her reverts of criticisms of Slater were OK, why her removal of subheaders were OK, why her failure to discuss adquately is OK. You have not done so. Mccready 09:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not an admin matter, and as such it doesn't belong on this page - please use the normal dispute resolution procedures described at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. In particular, SV isn't using admin rollback. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 09:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Finlay McWalter, you are correct. I looked over the edits and haven't seen anything more than what you describe. SlimVirgin certainly isn't utilizing her admin superpowers in this case. It's an edit dispute and really ought to be dealt with like any other edit dispute. Never Cry Wolf 10:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This has nothing to do with using administrator powers and also has no special need for an administrator to deal with some certain issue. Don't use AN/I to beat someone over the head in a content dispute; use dispute resolution like everyone else. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 14:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken is trying to hold up and push a new guideline Wikipedia:Semi-bots against clear consensus (7 wikipedians expressing reject, no one besides Francis wanting it, see talkpage). The guideline is rejected by the community. Francis disregards this. Do we need to have a single Wikipedian trying to push a new guideline against consensus? This can be severly disruptive, as such persistent crusades are harmful (see WP:AUM for such an example). I do not want to see this in edit summaries à la "rv. per WP:SBOTS". --Ligulem 11:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the proposal is going anywhere. This is nowhere near becoming accepted policy and most likely won't. I wouldn't say this debate rises anywhere near being disruptive for now. With seven to one against implementation (and by the way, there would be a whole lot more than eight votes before this became policy), it doesn't look like this has legs, so don't get too stressed about it. Have a cup of tea, let Francis present his best case, and have faith that the Wiki community will think the matter over and come to a conclusion that's best for the community and the encyclopedia. JDoorjam Talk 16:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Now Francis is revert warring against three editors (including me). Francis wrote on my talk: "No, the proposal has not been rejected by the wikipedia community; only a group of semi-bot users are trolling against it with all types of out-of-process techniques" He also issued an unfounded 3RR notice on my talk before doing his 3rd revert on Wikipedia:Semi-bots. This is disruptive behaviour. --Ligulem 08:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention he outright called Pegasus a troll. :/ Disruptive is indeed the right word for this situation. Never Cry Wolf 10:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet another revert later, Francis now claims this to be a "..."vote" organised by some kind of misguided semi-bot cabal...". I don't think this is the correct way to establish a guideline. --Ligulem 10:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Moose is right. Even though this proposal's fate is completely clear, it's probably not the best idea to close it so early. --InShaneee 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There are multiple references everywhere on Wikipedia to this page [27] as an edit counter. However, he specifically states on said page: "en.wikipedia.org data is no longer updated. To get an updated edit count, you'll need to use an external tool, such as Flcelloguy's, or Interiot's javascript.". Therefore, we're referring editors for official decisions (whether you've got enough edits for adminship, etc.) to a tool that, according to its creator, will give them outdated and now static information. [Example: it has me 595 total edits, 307 mainspace edits. The JavaScript has me at 709 total edits, 323 mainspace edits. (I've been doing a lot of userspace work lately, as well as interactions in some mediation/etc. procedure.)] Can anything be done to systemetically catch all links to this tool wherever they've been mentioned in official language? I'll edit where I can, but thought I'd bring the wider problem to your guys' attention. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 16:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, on those occasions I stumble across an edit counter link and update it, I'll use an internal link to User:Interiot/Tool2. Still, before I start doing that, if edit counters need to be used in formal workings of Wikipedia, wouldn't it make sense to store the entire system not externally but in some sort of Wikipedia namespace? How one might do this, and the various policies involved, are a bit past my experience, but thought I'd bring up this issue. If this needs to be brought up in another forum, if you guys'd be kind enough to point me to the right one, I can move this issue to the appropriate wiki page. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 16:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

They are currently working on a fix to the tool, as it is now, it should update but very slowly (I think). So we should keep it for now. See the discussoin on Interiot's talk page. JoshuaZ 16:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah. You think I should revert the two or three changes I made to redirect links to the updating counter (the Tool2 Javascript one)? — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering that many people will have difficulty running the java script one, that might be a good idea. Also for future reference, this sort of discussion might make more sense on the general amin noticeboard or on the village pump. JoshuaZ 17:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

True enough. It's not a incident. Sorry. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 18:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Followup to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinitely blocked user evading block: Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is yet again evading his indefinite block under the IP address 216.194.59.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (evidence: [28]). Can an administrator take a look and do what needs to be done? Thanks. Demiurge 19:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• blocked... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

New user Dream_Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) first edit targeted established editor DreamGuy (talk · contribs · count) by putting Hitler article on user page. --FloNight ^talk 19:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've indef blocked as I can't see that account ever being used for something useful. Other admins feel free to review as I'm new to this blocking thing, but it looked pretty straightforward. Petros471 19:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Throwaway vandal account, should be indef-blocked. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 19:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll second that. Or. Third even. :) --Woohookitty^(meow) 23:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Fourth. That first edit removed any potential doubt that the account was similarly named by accident. --bainer (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have created a disclaimer template for medical articles, violated a (to me unknown) policy and I suggest that the "Disclaimers" link should be moved to the TOP of the page somehow. See Template talk:HealthDisclaimer#Reasons for my reasons. ackoz 22:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Page moved to Wikipedia talk:No_disclaimer_templates/HealthDisclaimer as the template is to be deleted. ackoz 22:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Issue taken care of

We really need Trinity School at River Ridge to be protected. It has been vandalized in a huge rush of attacks just today, and is still under attacks from various IPs. I only think a semi-protection is needed, but if you think that a full protection would be necessary, then so be it. If so, I request that you please allow myself privledge to edit it. I have already reverted vandalism two times today, so I don't know if it would be appropriate for me to revert it once more (3RR), so please let me know if I will continue to be able to do so, because it's really not a conflict of interest, it's patent nonsense. Thanks, zappa.jake (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I read up on the 3RR more, so I'm going to continue reverting until I have to go to bed. Later, zappa.jake (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a WP:3RR exception for simple vandalism, but I'm not sure if the edits made to the page fall under simple vandalism. The changes are on that fine line between nonsense and POV statements. Maybe an admin can clarify which side it falls on. --Elkman - ^(talk) 04:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The article was semi-protected, which should stop the vandalism. Tony Sidaway (admin) said my reverts were okay. Anyways, thanks for your help! -zappa.jake (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we say "simple vandalism" to discourage people from labeling edits they don't like as "vandalism" and claiming exemption from the Three Revert Rule. In practise if there is a problem of this kind it doesn't harm to revert a few times but it is definitely better to file a report about the problem. WP:RFPP is a good place to go; there the page can be protected if necessary. --Tony Sidaway 05:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked RPJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours for trolling and harassment of User:Gamaliel after first warning him. Please review. Bishonen | talk 07:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

I blocked this account indefinitely as vandalism only. They hit a few admin's userpages, and created a speedyable page The Darth Cult Movement. I remember reading somewhere about personal threats and users talking about "DCM" (and giggling conspiratorially to themselves), so thought I would bring it up here. Keep an eye out for new accounts vandalizing related pages (DragonflySixtyseven's and Vegaswikian's in particular). --Syrthiss 15:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This time he's evading his indefinite block as 216.194.2.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [29]. Demiurge 15:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

blocked that one for 6 months, though I dont have time at the moment to go through and check contributions for reversions. :/ --Syrthiss 16:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Browndaddy moved this page to Kanchana. I messed up trying to fix it. Can an admin please delete Shaji N. Karun, move the pre-Browndaddy version of Kanchana to Shaji N. Karun and delete Kanchana. Tintin (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• He has now moved it to Kanchanamala. Anyone home ? Tintin (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Eugene van der Pijll 16:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Tintin (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The article sildenafil has been repeatedly linkspammed by an IP-hopping editor, causing the page to need semi-protection over the last month or so. The linkspammer is at it again today, with a couple of dozen edits/reverts already. I listed the offending website at the site-wide spam blacklist request page weeks ago, but it hasn't actually been added to the list yet. Can the page be semi-protected again, and can someone possibly expidite the process of getting the site blacklisted? Thanks. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Over 50 hits so far today: sprotect the sooner the better, I say. Noisy | Talk 17:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Done by pgk one min before my edit. Thanks. Noisy | Talk 17:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a big increase in stupid (as opposed to malicious) vandalism today; think it's because of the end of spring break, or something like that? Or am I just noticing more today? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right. All the classic school-assignment-type topics are getting dumb vandalism, so it must be a school day in the U.S. Antandrus (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Noticed that too. Just proposed a few days of semi-protection for Horse. --John Nagle 17:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Spring break for elementary schools (at least around here) has been over for a week. Hard to say about colleges, though I would think this is late for spring breaks for them. --Syrthiss 17:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a high school senior and spring break just ended for me today, so it is indeed likely that many US schools are following that schedual. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 18:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm in college, and we had spring break a month ago. I think that the "assignment" vandalism is due to finals or term papers, which should start next week, at least for me. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to think that most college students don't make up the majority of vandals. I think the increase in vandalism is purely coincidental as different school districts have different spring breaks. Around here was three weeks ago and I know of another county had theirs two weeks ago. So it seems to be different whereever you go. Pepsidrinka 18:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

We were having what I thought was a reasonable discussion regarding some statements which I determined to be POV. Then I found this line on another user's talk page (which I have since removed): "It really is most peculiar that this person considers these comments riddled by "point of view": clearly, from other indicia, this is a young kid, not vastly burdened by a weight of literacy.". Is this appropriate? I found it quite insulting. Arch26 17:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

After examining his edit log (User:yofoxyman, I noticed that he has only made harmful edits. He seems to have created the account just to vandalize. He has been warned but he continues to created problems. Made many personal attacks as well. Not sure what to do about. Any help? Thanks a bunch. 142.150.33.183 19:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've temporarily blocked the above IP temporarily, as it seems to be User:Chinamanjoe (from the above thread about this user) attempting to evade his current block, as well as smear yofoxyman. --InShaneee 19:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[30] this picture is missleading because it contains some errors. What is the best way to modify it or to delete it? I posted on talk page some proposal after my attempt for speedy deletion was refused. --Andrei George 20:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

See WP:IFD --InShaneee 20:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This editor (already on probation for her past antics) has written comments on her user talk page saying that "in the corporate world" she would have sued Wikipedia and won. This isn't quite a legal threat, but it seems to be at least skirting the edges of reasonable conduct given the policy against making such threats. *Dan T.* 02:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Monicasdude made very similar comments on WP:DRV, which I told him skirt the edges of NLT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• • So we should skirt the edges of being bothered by it. Edges duly skirted. Since it wasn't in actuality a threat, there's nothing in actuality to be bothered about. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • In most other settings, an organization which treated its members like Wikipedia could easily be seen as a violation of civil rights laws, resulting in substantial sanctions and overwhelmingly unfavorable public attention. That would be more healthy, in the long run, for Wikipedia than the festering bias that so many users disregard, too often even approve, right now. - you decide just how much skirting was done. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • And what threat is being made? Who are what is being threatened with any legal action? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I see no legal threat there. I see a frustrated editor making a valid observation. We've got some bad sytematic bias here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Erm what civil rights laws? I don't know of any protected class or discrete insular minority that is historically underrepresented in the US, that is discriminated against by Wikimedia. Seems pretty spurious to me. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I guess when I said, "a valid observation," I meant the observation there is a lot of disregarded and too often approved bias floating around here. Deeceevoice may seek it out, but she finds it, too easily, based on my admittedly limited observations. The idea that confronting our biases directly is better than letting them fester is also valid, IMO. I wasn't commenting so much on her first sentence; sorry for not being clearer about that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia does discriminate to some extent, which may or may not be a good thing. If I recall correctly, an editor was banned for stating that he was a pedophile on his userpage, despite an absence of disruptive behavior (there was a pedophile userbox controversy, but I think this guy just said he was a pedophile). Also, again if I recall correctly, an editor was banned for admitting his racist beliefs on his userpage, even though he did not make racists statements in articles. If such a person wants to make useful contributions, he or she would have to hide their beliefs. -- Kjkolb 08:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of you guys are absolutely hilarious. I didn't read that entry as a threat at all -- merely a valid, on-point, succinct and brilliantly expressed observation about the existence of a hostile, racist environment within Wikipedia, a system that repeatedly has shown itself to be completely unwilling to address the problem -- at the same time, repeatedly enforcing sanctions against the injured parties. And, gee, Dtobias, my memory may be failing me, but I did? Just when and where exactly? Bettah watch it. You might give people ideas. :p Deeceevoice 08:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Pedophiles are not a protected class. As for your other example, my guess is it was justified as a policy violation, which wikipedia is allowed to do. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • Sorry, I was unclear. My comment was not meant to be a reply to your comment about there being no civil rights violation (I agree) and I was not arguing that the bannings were unjustified or illegal. :-) -- Kjkolb 10:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

merely a valid, on-point, succinct and brilliantly expressed observation Geez, don't strain your arm patting yourself on the back. --Calton | Talk 13:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Another funny post. You're saying I'm Monicasdude. I encourage you to investigate. I think it's a user who's registered under another name, but me? Not a chance. :p Deeceevoice 16:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a moral panic, someone mentions suing and people go apeshit. Lapinmies 11:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Perzackly. :p Deeceevoice 16:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, I just read my comments to a user named DBrennaman (or something like that) on my talk page. And guess what? Dtobias is right. I did write that! (I guess my memory is failing me. lol) But, yeah. In the corporate world, I most certainly would sue the hell out of Wikipedia. And win. But, gee, this is cyberspace -- isn't it? :p deeceevoice 17:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

For what, exactly? For not giving you a special exemption from generally-applied rules requiring civil behavior, on the grounds that you are of a "protected class" under civil rights laws? For allowing people to create and expand articles based on their own interests even if this results in there being much more info about Pokemon characters than [insert weighty, important, possibly racically-related topic here]? For not having affirmative-action quotas that perhaps prevent the registration of any more white, male users, or creation of articles about white males and the things they're interested in, until an appropriate quota of users of color and articles about things they care about are added? *Dan T.* 21:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Your deliberate mischaracterization of the issues is pretty laughable. deeceevoice 16:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Deecee isn't in the corporate world so how can a statement of belief be seen as a legal threat. The fact that she says she would win is also her belief, not a statement of fact. Having a problem with this sounds dangerously close to censorship to me. To then compare this statement to self-confessed pedophiliacs and rascists is beyond belief, SqueakBox 18:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That they don't regard this as the least bit sick is, I think, just fascinating. You should check the exchange between User:Zoe and User:Monicasdude on his talk page. Hilarious. What do you bet she won't be back? deeceevoice 18:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking abou tme not coming back? Sorry, it will take a lot more than your racist rants to drive me away. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And just what "racist rant" is that? And I'm referring to your (predictably) failed attempt at intimidation on Monicasdude's talk page. Hilarious exchange. Had me crackin' up. Thanks for the comic relief. deeceevoice 16:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, I'm very tempted to delete Deeceevoice's userpage as a rant under the terms of his probation. Any thoughts? --InShaneee 21:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• What about it offends you? Her probation says "Deeceevoice is prohibited from using her user page to publish offensive rants." (I tried to get the phrasing made more objective, since "offensive" is pretty vague, but was rebuffed.) Tell ya what, though; if you do delete it, I'll just put it on my own user page, since I agree with it, pretty much to the letter. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆

Yes I found it pretty inspiring too, SqueakBox 04:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone bothered by Deeceevoice's user page should get to work proving her wrong by working on our coverage of a broader variety of topics. The idea that silencing her is a better use of one's energy is a rather perverse and backwards one, IMO. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear! - FrancisTyers 18:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• This is exaclty the reason that wikipedia needs an entirely new generation of administrators, not bogged down by all this politically "correct" nonesense, who will be willing to deal with messes like this with the sterness requird, ie. delete the userpage + indef block for disruption, anyone who tries to repost the content should be stripped of their administrative powers, and placed on probabtion, which is why in an ideal world, people like myself would be in a place to make these decisions, unfortunatly, it is not so, and so a very different systematic bias sweeps wikipedia--I-2-d2 04:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What? So, now you're the thought police? Sounds like fascism to me. There's nothing remotely offensive about the page. The ruling was issued because the previous version of my page contained images from the database that people found disturbing (most of them appended in the past to my user or talk pages by racist, neo-Nazi, mental cretins). If you can't stand to read reasoned, objective criticism of the project, then perhaps you should consider the fact that your temperament may ill-suit you to be an effective, impartial admin. I can easily name a dozen user pages that are at least as equally critical of the project as mine. IMO, admins would do better to address people's very real concerns than waste your energies blanking people's user pages. Telling, indeed. deeceevoice 16:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Whats that? You support paedophiles and would like to trash any editors fighting systematic first world bias and rascism? (see I-2-d2's user page). You are right we need to overhaul the admins system but not to impose the biases of a few extremists such as I-2-d2 but to ensure people like that dont gain any authority on this project. This project is in a mess so I guess it isn';t surprising there are those with proposals on how to make it worse if not destroy it completely, SqueakBox 14:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope I'll be forgiven for inquiring just what the hell all this nonsense is about. In any event, this isn't a matter for the Administrators' noticeboard, and I'd like to ask that interested parties take this (apparently ongoing) dispute elsewhere. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it is in a sense a matter for this noticeboard, in that the arbcom decision so vaguely defined "offensive" in DCV's probation that anyone in a mood to harass her can raise the issue of her probation as a tool against her in a content war. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"It seems that you don't really get what's going on with this website, just how deeply systemic and pervasive the racism is here, that it's part of the way the system works. And until people recognize that -- really recognize that -- they will continue to excuse and shrug off conduct like that of Zoe and Crypto and Rob Church and then turn to me and counsel me to "learn to cope." Will all due respect (and no animosity whatsoever), f*** that.". These are personal attacks/incivility and grounds for a block for a user on probation. My experience with Crypto and Zoe has been that they have integrity and are unbiased. Even if not, personal attacks are not allowed. Just to remind yall, this user talks about the "pervasive racism here" while spouting black supremacist stuff like "IMO, we're the baddest, most beautiful things on God's green. :D I walk in that truth. And I don't much give a damn about those who are so blinded by racism, intolerance, hatred and their own fears and insecurities, that they can't/won't see our Light....Their constant attempts to dehumanize and denigrate us are a reflection on them and their sickness...WE are the ancestors of everyone (and everything) else. We stood upright, and OUR eyes saw the Earth when it was new. We built the first great civilizations. We are God's Firstborn."[31]Justforasecond 17:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Please try and remain civil JFAS and please refrain from attempting to characterise other users as supremacists, that is a borderline personal attack. I realise it is a constant challenge, but I really think you would benefit from a more constructive and conciliatory approach to Deeceevoice. Good luck! - FrancisTyers 18:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That "God's Firstborn" thing is a load of hokum, anyway... the fact that the first humans to appear on Earth were apparently in the continent of Africa (as is held by scientists now) certainly does not imply anything about present-day African peoples being in any way "closer" to the "firstborns" from which all of humanity sprung; people of all races and continents are descended from those ancestors by approximately the same number of generations (give or take a little depending on how childbearing ages may have varied in different times and places) and have had a similar amount of evolutionary divergence; no race has a basis for any sort of valid claim of being closer to "God" (or to chimpanzees, for that matter) due to happening to have remained on the same continent as their ancestors instead of migrating elsewhere. *Dan T.* 18:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Shrug. Read all the discussions on that page for a good overview; she was making an impassioned (and supportive) response to another editor, and engaged in a bit of hyperbole -- amidst the more serious business of discussing her lack of a dolichocephalic skull and presence of both a maxillary and alveolar prognathism. A bit of original research, but I suppose pointing to yourself and saying "I'm an example of this physical configuration" is reasonable. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Lord. Give it a rest, JFAS. Dtobias: "No race has a basis for any sort of valid claim of being closer to 'God'." That's neither the meaning nor the intent of what I wrote. And that's all I'll say about it. But I'm struck by the claim of a particular group to be God's "chosen people." Since you apparently feel the need to comment on my out-of-context comments, any comments on that? Are you likewise prepared to charge observant Jews with "racism" and being "Jewish supremacists"? Absurd. deeceevoice 18:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually no, Dan. Africans maintain more diversity in terms of mtDNA and Y chromosomal haplotypes. Since all non-African people are derived from small groups which migrated out of African relatively recently, they lack much of the lineage diversity which is present in Africans. Since more of the ancestral genetic diversity is present in Africans, it's a valid statement to say that they are "closer" to ancestral humans (and to chimpanzees) than are non-African populations, which lack much of this ancestral genetic diversity. So yeah, if you believe that God created humans, it's a valid statement. Guettarda 18:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha. I have a(n admittedly) bad habit of reading the first few lines of a post and responding before I've read the entire thing. There is no question that blacks are closer to the original people than anyone else. Absent environmental and certain other stressors that caused dark-skinned peoples to mutate to fair-skinned peoples, indigenous African peoples are the least changed from the original humans on the planet. The Khoisan peoples and the Ethiopid peoples of Africa are thought to both share a common, ancient African, human ancestor. Judging from faciocranial characteristics, it is likely the "Ethiopid" peoples formed a later "proto-Caucasoid group" from which Europeans later mutated/emerged. It is very clear that the first human beings were black people, the rest of humanity having descended from us. And Guettarda is right. Indigenous Africans possess a greater degree of biodiversity than any other peoples on earth. He is also correct that, since we were the first humans, on a timeline of development, we are then, of course, also closer to humankind's simian ancestors. deeceevoice 18:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice and Guettarda, you are misinformed on this subject. It is disinformation like this that results in people saying "group X is more primitive/less evolved than group Y". In actuality, all have been evolving and adapting for the same amount of time. In any case, saying "we are the baddest, most beautiful beings on god's green" is supremacist. -Justforasecond 16:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't, I'd council you to stop making unfounded allegations immediately. - FrancisTyers 16:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Which doesn't of course make black people better than white people and therefore it should not be interpreted as saying so either. Rascism is a fact on modern life as is first world bias and in that wikipedia is just a reflection of real life and to point this out isnt rascist either. As a white under 50, middle class technologically male I dont feel attacked by what Deeceevoice's user page says, I feel she has a point. After all we are trying to write the encyclopedia of everything and countering systemic bias is an integral part of that, SqueakBox 21:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

---

JFAS, you are to cease immediately from commenting on the activities of DCV, or you will be censured. El_C 01:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to remain civil El_C. Thanks! Justforasecond 01:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

JFAS has been blocked for three hours for continuing to disrupt the bd. El_C 01:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Cantus has been banned from editing Developed country, yet continues to revert. Appleby 05:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've given Cantus a short block, with a warning that if he continues breaking the terms of the ArbCom decision when he returns, he will be blocked longer. jaco♫plane 06:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for a week a minute after your block . . . i'll defer to you and fix it. --Heah? 06:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've created a "log of bans and blocks" section in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3 and added this short block to it. --Tony Sidaway 16:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

it looks like a sockpuppet User:200.120.183.182 at it again. i realized after the above request that cantus had edited the forbidden article several times [32] and [33] & probably other similar reverts. a stronger action is needed. thanks. Appleby 02:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Cantus is now blocked for a month for related sock puppetry. --Tony Sidaway 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked kiw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is a very old sock of Cantus, which he has recently revived in order to continue evading the block. --Tony Sidaway 14:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please delete HAI2U, and possible protect from recreation? Restoring the deleteagain tag is beginning to become a drag. Thanks. --W(t) 06:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks Encephalon. --W(t) 07:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Pleasure —Encephalon 08:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

But what happens when someone verifies the facts? There was no consensus to delete the page and people were collecting the references. Lapinmies 11:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Lapinmies. If you wish to rewrite an article that is compliant with Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research and related rules, you are very welcome to do so in a user subpage and notify an administrator when you're done. If the new effort sufficiently addresses the concerns over which the original was deleted, such that it cannot be speedily deleted under CSD G4, the HAI2U page may be unlocked and the new version moved there. Note that, depending on the adequacy of the rewrite, it may or may not be renominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. As to the original article's deletion, I judged the closing administrator's decision to be perfectly appropriate: Wikipedia:Verifiability is a foundational principle of the encyclopedia, and not something that can be set aside by users in the belief that it "doesn't apply" to a page. Note that the value of true consensus decision-making lies in its propensity to arrive at an acceptable decision that most participants can live with and see the merits of, even when they do not all agree completely. The questions to which consensus decision-making are best applied are those where there is no immediately clear 'right answer'; it cannot be applied to overule foundational policies. For example, if 10 users ask to "keep" an article in AFD but one comes along and points out that the article is a copyright infringement, I would not simply decide to ignore the foundational policy Wikipedia:Copyrights and say "there is a 'consensus' to keep"—neither would any other administrator who has remotely any idea of what he's doing. I view the close of the HAI2U AFD similarly. If you disagree, however, note that it is currently in Review—you are welcome to join the discussion. Regards —Encephalon 15:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess Encephalon welcomes us to rewrite the article but isn't willing to provide a copy for us to do so. How disingenuous. It also looks like on the WP:DRV page every single fact on the article has been verified by Alkivar. Let's see what new excuse Encephalon will come up with so as not to fulfill the promises he just made.—195.250.175.254 22:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The talk page contains a notation of all the claims that were unsourced. Since the article had no sources at the time I made the post, all the content of the article is listed there. Feel free to dig up sources for those claims. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Alkivar seems to have done a good job explaining it. Please re-create the article now. Rhobite 01:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a regrettable bit of nonsense, of course. I have never even been asked to provide a copy, at any time. The suggestion, therefore, that I refused a request is untrue, and the personal attack sadly ironic. As to recreation, it is best to abide the outcome of the deletion review discussion. Regards —Encephalon 09:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

With regard to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-04-21_MDD4696, Ardenn contacted administrator Earl Andrew at 9:21 pm CST Friday evening, saying he needed to speak with Mr. Andrew privately on MSN. [34]

Mr. Andrew posted to said mediation page 22 minutes after Ardenn's query. [35], and levied a 24-hour ban upon me 9 minutes later [36]. Andrew did so without advising me I was blocked, as required by blocking policy. (WP:BP: "Users should be notified of blocks on their talk pages.") Indeed, I first found out of my block when attempting to post an earlier draft of my response in the mediation late Friday evening.

Ardenn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for incivility and disruption for one hour by User:Mdd4696 at 9:44 pm Thursday evening (admin description of block here). Since that time, as complained of above, user conducted over seven separate personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA, within 48 hours' time in less than a day and a half: 1 (calling admin a "known troll"), 2 (used STFU, abbreviation for "shut the f—k up"), 3 (taunt/insult), 4 (threat), 5, 6, and 7 (contains personal attacks in item nos. 4, "payback"; 8, "your ignorance is apparent"; and 9, "stuck her nose where it didn't belong").

In response to this complaint, at 6:52 pm (CST) April 22, 2006, InShaneee blocked "Ardenn (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (incivility). Special:Log/block.

At 8:20 pm (CST), Earl Andrew unblocked Ardenn. The reason was "(as per request)." Special:Log/block Significant. He left a message with the blocking admin that said, "InShaneee, Ardenn did nothing to deserve the block you just gave him. That was a legitimate rebuttal." User talk:InShaneee#Blocking_Ardenn.

It is my opinion that Mr. Andrew is demonstrating a considerable and consistent bias in favor of Ardenn's actions. I ask the administrators to respond at this level, but am willing to take this to higher strata if necessary, as Ardenn should not have license to continue personal attacks simply because he has the friendship of an admin. Thank you for your time. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 02:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I do believe E.A. is wrong here, and should immediately re-instate the block, and acknowledge his mistake. NSLE _(T+C) at 02:08 UTC (2006-04-23)

I second that. I've made some bold blocks before, but that one was about as clear cut as they come. --InShaneee 02:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I need to make a factual clarification to my complaint. Osgoode, another admin, made the comment that it was a legitimate rebuttal — not Andrew. Nevertheless, Andrew made the reversion. Still, my apologies for the error, and the rest of the facts are correct. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 02:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The posts by Ardenn that you linked to are amazingly rude, and a block seems appropriate. But I'm having some trouble following this. Osgoodelawyer is an admin since when? And what's he or his putative admin status got to do with this? Bishonen | talk 02:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC).

I imagine I'm not coming across as very factual at the moment, but evidently Osgoodelawyer is not an admin. I apologize. Is there a clear way to discern from an everyday look at a user's name or other method whether they're an admin? And Osgoodelawyer has nothing to do with this. I was pointing out that Osgoodelawyer made the statement and not Andrew because I wanted that fact — the fact of the "that was a legitimate rebuttal" remark — removed from consideration when considering a reversal of Earl Andrew's unblocking. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 03:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, checking the List of administrators is the only way I know. (Admins' names don't have a "The most sublime" in there or anything, I wish they did! ;-)) Bishonen | talk 05:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC).

Mr. Andrew appears not to be on Wikipedia, as his edits stop over an hour ago, and he has not reverted his unblock of Ardenn. Considering he did not follow proper unblocking procedure for admins (specifically: "it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking admin, rather than performing the unblock yourself"), can someone else reinstate the block? Ardenn's original block would have expired at 6:52 pm (CST) on 4/24/06, per here. Thank you for my consideration of my request. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 02:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, while meaning no disrespect, could someone please reinstate the block? — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 03:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless there is data somehow being omitted from this [37], still no response? — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 04:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Everybody seems to be in accord, so I've done it. Bishonen | talk 05:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC).

Much obliged. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 05:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I hesitated to get involved since none of the people registering approval of the block above seemed to want to do the deed, but after the comment about my own motives that I have already netted from Ardenn, I ask everybody to let the block stand. Ardenn's removal of Inshaneee's and Commander Keane's messages from his page is also interesting. Bishonen | talk 06:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC).

Would support longer block if trolling continues. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:13 UTC (2006-04-23)

Sorry about this folks. I told Ardenn that if there was trouble over it, I wouldn't get involved. I wont be unblocking him again. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't make it real clear above, but I did support reblocking (just wasn't sure if it was appropriate for me to do personally), and I do support a longer block if behavior does not improve. --InShaneee 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey all, Osgoodelawyer (the non-admin) chiming in here. I wasn't aware of all that had gone down before InShaneee blocked Ardenn, but from the reason given by InShaneee on Ardenn's talk page, it didn't seem like there was real justification to block him—certainly not for a full two days—and that's why I made the comment I did on InShaneee's page. However, I was unaware of some of the earlier things said, including the "STFU" comment noted above (which I actually can't find, but which I assume is somewhere), and I agree that's certainly deserving of a block. I've had my share of problems with Ardenn myself, but I've been trying to help out a bit, knowing that he's also done a lot of good. Perhaps, though, a good 48 hours away from Wikipedia will help cool his head. -- OsgoodeLawyer 13:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The "STFU" comment is here: [38] -- noosphere 01:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What the heck is going on with this page? Danny protected it, but he wasn't the one who put the WP:OFFICE tag on it. Aren't Danny and Jimbo the only people allowed to tag articles with OFFICE? User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Per discussion on the mailing list, this is an office action. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 05:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And it wasn't listed as such because ...? User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

There are certain trusted editors who may sometimes perform office actions at Danny's or Jimbo's direction, when Danny is not available. If you have a question about any edits which appear to be such, please contact Danny directly. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:OFFICE:WP:OFFICE is an official policy promulgation by Jimbo Wales which allows Danny Wool (longtime Wikipedian, English Wikipedia admin, Steward, and Foundation employee) to temporarily protect or modify an article. Such actions are performed for a variety of issues, including prevention of potential legal problems, removal of libel, and responding to verifiability issues and other formal complaints. Danny has stated he'll use a separate account, Dannyisme (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), when acting in his offical capacity. Where does it say, "Certain trusted editors may sometimes perform such office actions at Danny's or Jimbo's direction?" How are we to know that such actions are not vandalism and/or wildcatting? When do we know tht OFFICE tags have been properly added and are not the result of somebody wanting to win an edit war? User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

When you get blocked and de-admined for ignoreing them. Or ignoreing them after they have been removed by danny. It's kinda a bit of a mess at the moment.Geni 12:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Have a look here for the beginning of the WikiEN-l thread about it. Blackcap (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I had a similar reaction. Snoutwood (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's crazy bad. It might be too much to expect on short notice, but I wonder if changes to the software are going to be the most practical way to deal with WP:OFFICE actions. (I.E. create a level of permissions for office, and sysops would be technically restricted from editing an office-protected article, for example.) Friday (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"If you have questions about any edits which appear to be [OFFICE edits], please contact Danny directly." There's your answer. Amazingly enough, talking to your fellow admins is the best way to find out what's going on. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Kelly, that advice is not very useful. In at least one case in question, Danny deliberately took steps to make his actions seem NOT to be WP:OFFICE. Asking us to be mind-readers is not a good policy. Johntex\^talk 19:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

He didn't use the OFFICE tag and he didn't use the Userid he claims he'll use when doing things in his official capacity. It looks to me like a content disupte, not an OFFICE edit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. If Danny is going to continue to contribute as a regular editor, he can't also expect us to assume that every action he makes is an OFFICE action. --InShaneee 01:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Over the past few days, a group of new users, who are here most likely as a result of the discussion at SkyscraperCity Forums have come to Wikipedia to promote their city, Thiruvananthapuram. They have claims that it is the largest city in the Indian state ot Kerala, although virtually all sources state that Cochin, in fact is. After numerous attempts to discuss it with them, they don't seem to be willing to stop or compromise. Does anyone know what I should do? Please help, thanks. —Khoikhoi 07:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

According to the Census of India and as also reported and published by www.citypopulation.de

[39], Thiruvananthapuram is the biggest City Corporation by population. The reporting of this fact is continously being edited and changed to 'second largest city after Cochin' by the people who have started this off. If you look at previous edits, any efforts to change a statement that Trivandrum has narrow and winding roads, to wide and clean roads (Trivandrum has the longest kilometerage of 6 lane and 4 lane dual carriageways, with high mast lamps and automated road sweeping machines) was promptly deleted by User:Deepujoseph. Even in the 1930's the main arterial road was almost 6 lanes in width (it was the road between the two palaces of the Travancore Royal Family). Please have a look at the history of the page and judge. Rajeshdxb 14:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like just a definition question; in terms of the incorporated city, T. is the largest city; in terms of urban agglomeration it is Kochi. I have clarified this in the introduction of both articles, and I hope both parties find that acceptable. As it is about content, I don't think it needs to be on this noticeboard, and therefore I have removed a message below on the same subject. Eugene van der Pijll 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is all that we have been writing for. Still, a request for a small change: I do not think that the part of the statement which reads 'although the population of the urban agglomeration is smaller than that of Kochi', is required. My view is that the statement can read as follows- 'With almost 745,000 inhabitants at the 2001 census, the city of Trivandrum is the most populated incorporated city in Kerala, and the population of the urban agglomeration is 889,000'. Rajeshdxb 16:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm, yeah, that would still make it clear that the "largest city" refers to the incorporated city; not to the UA. It loses the bit of info that T. is not the largest UA, but I can live with that. Eugene van der Pijll 16:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Good. Actually the two tags is good idea to avoid ambiguity. This will prevent to people to capitalize on ambiguities.

Also some guys are removing the Thiruvananthapuram from India map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India and also in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiruvananthapuram, they place their own map to deny the prominence to the city.

One more point which no body can deny . Thiruvananthapuram city counsel consists of 84 members while that of Cochin has 60 members.--Sathyalal 06:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Around a day-and-a-half ago Sgrayban (talk · contribs) started and cosigned a RfC against Adam Carr. Since then, Sgrayban was banned indefinitely by James Forrester for making bizarre legal threats against Adam Carr [40], thereby rendering the RfC is effectively moot at this point. With Sgrayban no longer a legitimate contributor, the RfC fails to meet the requirement of two cosigners. Further, Adam Carr was never notified on his talk page, meaning that the RfC was invalid all along, notwithstanding Sgrayban's indefinite ban. An administrator should go ahead and delete the page (or at least close it and protect it) so that it no longer poses a unwarranted distraction. 172 | Talk 17:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Another user has co-signed the RfC, picking up where the indefinitly banned trouble-maker left off-- not a distinguished path to follow, but technically the RfC now has met the requirement of 2 co-signers in 48 hours. 172 | Talk 07:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman has recently began editing Wikipedia again after leaving. He is going round administrator talk pages placing similar messages on each one asking for his account to be deleted and making an attempt to badmouth me [41] [42] , I can only assume he believes it will have an effect on my active RfA. He was also uncivil towards me [43] saying "you are really pathetic" and now has just made a personal attack saying I should go "cut some bread and leave this to the grown ups" [44] (because I am 17 and work at Subway in addition to attending college). Can someone please do something about this? --Darth Deskana (talk page) (my RfA!) 19:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Is now disrupting the RfA process on my RfA and is posting personal attacks on that aswell. Urgency is required, please [45]. --Darth Deskana (talk page) (my RfA!) 19:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks and trolling. --InShaneee 20:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate for me to remove the personal attacks from my RfA but it is difficult to read it with them in there. --Darth Deskana (talk page) (my RfA!) 20:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you. It is nice to have a bit of peace. :-) --Darth Deskana (talk page) (my RfA!) 20:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I was in the middle of typing a message to Rob's talk page, as he was hysterically saying that I had told him his account would be or had been deleted and protected, and was going to various pages demanding that it be deleted now, after I had failed to do so. However, when I went to submit my post, I found he had made so many attacks that they had been deleted and his page protected. I'm therefore posting here instead.

Robsteadman e-mailed me on 3 April, asking me to delete his account. Of course, that's not possible, so I e-mailed him that I could delete his user page and his talk page, but not his contributions. I never told him that I would delete his account. A copy of the reply I sent him on 3 April (still in my computer) is as follows:

If you inform me that you are leaving Wikipedia, I can delete your user page and archive, blank, and protect your talk page.

If you really intend that, let me know by e-mail, or better still post it on my talk page so that I'll have evidence if anyone queries it.

It's not possible to remove your contributions from the history of articles, though.

Ann

It is simply impossible for somebody to recreate a deleted account, since there is no such thing as a deleted account. Rob's userpage was deleted, as was his talk page. But the account couldn't be deleted, so if he edited something from his usual computer, it would appear in the diff as coming from Robsteadman, as is the case for a particularly nasty and spiteful comment concerning two editors who were driven off Wikipedia because of real-life stalking[46] and the case of an edit to the article about the composer Robert Steadman.[[47] There are only three possibilities:

1. Rob made those edits, thinking that his account had been deleted[48] and that the edits would therefore be anonymous.
2. When he stopped editing Wikipedia, he did not think of logging out, and somebody else with enough knowledge about his conflict with those two editors and with an interest in the Robert Steadman article made those edits.
3. Someone else knows his password, and knows enough about Robert Steadman the composer and about his conflict with some of the Christian editors to make those edits.

However, there is absolutely no possibility that someone created a Robsteadman account after Rob had gone. I once wanted the username Cordelia, but that name was "taken", because someone had registered it, even though that person had never made any edits. You can edit a talk page and sign it as if from another user, though in that case it shows up in the diff that it's not from that user. But you can't mess with another user's Special:Contributions.

With regard to Rob's denial of sockpuppetry, six admininstrators with checkuser access have reviewed the evidence — see here. But he is still shrieking things about libel, and is still accusing Deskana of vandalism.

It has been pointed out the new user Yummy mummy, who edits from a British school IP (see here) and is showing interest in Robert Steadman, Jesus, and other music-related articles, is making arguments similar to Robsteadman, and could have a connection. Yummy mummy and Robsteadman have both voted to oppose Deskana's RfA.

I have always tried to be as fair as possible to Rob, despite his numerous personal attacks, and his hysterical outbursts. I voted to keep the Robert Steadman article. I showed him how to archive his talk page. I reverted vandalism to his user page. I reverted harassing-type edits to his talk page. On many occasions I asked people to leave him alone. I deleted his user page at his request. But I believe that the nature of his personal attacks tonight will make it difficult for anyone to believe that the spiteful remark on the Jesus talk page did not come from him. And his hysterical behaviour on Deskana's RfA page has done more harm to him than to Deskana. A checkuser could certainly esablish if the spiteful comment on the Jesus talk page came from Rob's IP, but I know admins don't normally carry out userchecks to satisfy idle curiosity. AnnH ♫ 21:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser has now established that Yummy mummy is indeed a sockpuppet of Robsteadman, and the account has been blocked indefinitly. --InShaneee 21:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No, but we do carry them out to break up abuse on RfA. Mackensen (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Update. I have just had an e-mail from Rob, denying that he used sockpuppets, and denying that he made the edits on 20 and 23 April. He seems to blame me for the fact that his account was not deleted. I never told him that I could delete the account, and I never intended that he would think I could. I did delete his user page. He says now that he wants his account to be permanently blocked. I see that User:InShaneee has extended the block on Robsteadman to indefinite, for trolling and personal attacks. Some examples were on Rob's own talk page (now deleted); some were on User talk:William M. Connolley (now removed by William, but still in the history); and some were on Deskana's RfA. AnnH ♫ 21:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be telling a lie if I didn't say I'm breathing a sigh of relief at the fact that Robsteadman has been blocked. I know in my heart and my brain that he would never have turned around and became a productive Wikipedian, but I still feel it's a shame somehow, despite all he's done to badmouth me. --Darth Deskana (talk page) (my RfA!) 21:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

(personal attack removed)(who I am about to go look at and likely block for being a sock ip of Robsteadman ^_^ Syrthiss 12:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

Is changing the accurate link to Miami of Ohio University (where Edwin Yamauchi teaches[49][50]), to Miami University, where he does not teach. He insists I am a vandal for attempting to keep the accurate information. Normally, I would call this a content dispute, but Howardjp has done this before. He further has recently replaced an article with a redirect, with no Afd or Merge discussion (in fact, no discussion whatsoever), he has moved then blanked his talk page twice, he blanks his talk page regularly, and in general does not Play Well With Others. I would very much appreciate other admins and editors looking into his contribution history, including accusations of vandalism (and idiocy) in detail, before I am banned for Vandalism and Wiki-stalking - but if you prefer, I don't mind a Rouge admin badge. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Gee, didn't take long to blank your question. blank 4-24-06 •Jim62sch• 20:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I also had a response up. The simple fact is, according to [51], he does teach at Miami University. User:KillerChihuahua appears to be confusing Miami University with University of Miami, which are two different schools. Also, you should note with the merge, that one is budget theory which I redirected to budget. Wikipedia:Merge makes it clear that it is not necessary to have an AfD result in a merge when two pages on exactly the same topic. -James Howard (talk/web) 20:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There was no response from you to my question. Miami of Ohio redirects to Miami University, in Ohio. Regardless of whether I was confused or not confused about the link, the issue remains: you have called me a vandal 3 times, you have insulted me, I have asked for an explanation and you have responded by blanking my question and demanding an apology from me. Civility costs little. You apparently are bankrupt. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course I blanked my talk page. I'd seen the contents and there is no logical reason to carry on the conversation on three pages. Two has been confusing enough. The fact of the matter is, you made a bunch of bad edits without bothering to do any research and then deliberately misrepresented my edit history. The fact is, you have engaged the standard round of bullying so common among admins here. Finally, I didn't demand an apology. I said I await one. You don't have to deliver, but it will show whether your intent is bullying for the sake of bullying, or actually participating in the larger community. -James Howard (talk/web) 21:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I take back the merge part. Apparently, WP:MERGE now is a redirect to the category, rather than the policy page. I haven't looked at it in a few months. -James Howard (talk/web) 21:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a correct link on the topic. -James Howard (talk/web) 21:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

He's made this edit before, wrongly: [52] with the edit summary "that's just offensive". Now he's changing the verbiage of the link, but keeping the correct university (which I changed it back to), I suppose to try to obscure the issue. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense. -James Howard (talk/web) 20:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Neither does stating that you "had a response up" when the diff shows that you clearly didn't. Nor does it make sense to demand (or await) an apology from someone that you just accused of being part of systemic bullying. It might be a good idea to rethink your posture here. •Jim62sch• 21:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That probably wasn't clear. The response was on his page, not on mine. It would not make sense to post something on my own page then immedietly blank it. Of course, stranger things have happened. -James Howard (talk/web) 21:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Would that be the response where you referred to me as a bully and a liar? I asked about your characterization of me as a vandal, and have not recieved a response. Enough of this, AN/I is not the place for this discussion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

After being blocked for personal attacks has continued more of the same [53], [54]. Since I removed the unblock the first time, would someone else care to take a look and have a talk/extend the block further? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the personal attacks, he seems to be hinting at sock usage. Regardless, it's obvious from that comment that he intends to pursue a campaign of harrassment against another user (along with anyone who gets in his way). Blocked for 1 week, and I wouldn't oppose anyone extending if they believe it's worth it. --InShaneee 20:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I support the one week ban, but should point out that due to the block conflict in place it doesn't apply at the moment. Petros471 20:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

True, if you block someone who is currently blocked, the block due to end first is the one that acutally "takes". So as far as I know, if you block someone for a week and then feel you've been too harsh, you can simply reblock for 48 hours. But if you block for 48 hours and then decide it should have been a week, you have to unblock before you reblock. AnnH ♫ 21:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been out for a couple of hours and have completely lost the thread of this one. Alienus was reported for 3RR [55]. He was then blocked for personal attacks by User:Nandesuka even though I can't find a complaint/incident or warning for an offence of this kind. Nandesuka is a user at loggerheads with Alienus [56] over other matters so should really have kept out of this anyway. Surely the correct way to have gone about this was for either an unconnected admin to block him for 3RR or a personal attack incident be reported so that again, an unconnected admin deals with it. Whilst not excusing Alienus kicking off on his talk page I can see why he feels victimised as proper procedure seems to have been thrown out of the window in the hurry to ban him. The only way to defeat cabal theories is not to act like one. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 21:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never had any contact with this user whatsoever before today, and I'm the one who's now extended his block to 1 week for incivility and threats of further trolling. --InShaneee 21:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, here are some of the warnings Alienus has received over the past couple of months: [57], [58], [59], [60]. You can't find them because he removes them from his talk page. And those are just some of the ones I left; I'm sure other editors have warned him as well (this section of his archive shows 2 other admins politely warning him to stop engaging in personal attacks). As for me being at loggerheads with him, that is why I posted the ban at WP:AN and requested that uninvolved admins review the block. I think that subsequent events have proven me right. Nandesuka 22:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The posting on WP:AN should come before the block. Month old warnings do not apply to this case. Alienus is not an unknown vandal who must be stopped asap so setting aside procedure in this case seems incorrect. InShaneee came along after Alienus was venting his anger at what he saw as an unjust block so his view of the situation is skewed. It doesn't seem right to ban a user on an unreported charge and then say it's justified because the blocked user is annoyed by how he was treated. It could be considered entrapment. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You're free to call it what you like, but personal attacks, threats of trolling, and other incivility are unacceptable under ANY circumstances. --InShaneee 23:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it could be considered entrapment. In my opinion Alienus was provoked by Nandesuka to respond in an intemperate manner. It is unfortunate that Alienus took the bait, instead of ignoring it. It is also unfortunate in my opinion that you are the only person to question the appropriateness of Nandesuka's ban given his history of disagreement with Alienus on circumcision related articles. -- DanBlackham 07:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand - I don't support any personal attacks and I agree they are never justified but the only way to show that the system is fair and open is to use it that way. All that happens when you ignore procedure is that it makes the user concerned feel cornered and no one shows their best side under such circumstances. It will also support his view that the system is arbitrary as that is what happened in this case. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This is hardly arbitrary, and I consider it an insult that you keep implying that. This user was on a personal campaign to smear a user on RfA before he was blocked, and I refuse to believe that this guy was unaware of the no personal attacks policy. Users shouldn't expect to be able to get away with a certain number of violations with just warnings before a block. --InShaneee 23:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I haven't known him for long, but the attitude he displayed towards me on Talk:Christianity was pretty much the same as what I've seen on his user page. I'm the one who reported him for 3RR, not AnnH, or this sinister circumcision cabal he keeps ranting about, and I likely wouldn't have done so had he not been so relentlessly and implacably hostile, accusatory and uncivil. To say it's a reaction to his block is inaccurate.Timothy Usher 23:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the Christianity page has a cloud of suspicion hanging over it. SOPHIA is quite right when she says "The only way to defeat cabal theories is not to act like one." I may be in the minority here, but I thought I should say something. Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 23:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The only edit connected to an RfA that I can find was posted on his talk page after he was blocked [61] [62] and was pretty mad at what had happened. All I am trying to do is stand up for proper procedure and am surprised and concerned that I am being given a hard time for that. Alienus would have been banned whatever for 3RR and I am not disputing that. One of his points is that admins will not analyse a situation and learn from it which is begining to look justified in this case. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The situation is that he threatened to continue harrassing this user once he's unblocked, and seems to be implying that he's quite willing to circumvent his block to do it. Proper proceedure was followed here, and once again, there is NO excuse for his actions, not when he did them, not what other people did before he did them. What do you expect to get out of this, anyway? He's certainly not getting unblocked after making those threats. --InShaneee 23:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I simply don't agree with you, SOPHIA, that this block was out of process, although I am of course willing to listen to your arguments. The idea that one should need regular reminders not to tell other contributors that they suck is, at least on Wikipedia, a novel interpretation. Alienus knows that personal attacks are unacceptable. He has made a conscious decision to ignore that policy, and deliberately and repeatedly made vicious personal attacks, daring the community to discipline him for them. His third strike, in my personal opinion, was about 10 strikes ago. He has been blocked in accordance with the blocking policy, and every admin who has reviewed the case so far has either reconfirmed or extended the block. One can choose to interpret that as evidence of a sinister cabal of oppressors, or one can choose to interpret that as people that care about Wikipedia, which is not a bureaucracy, making the best calls that they can to protect the encyclopedia. I suggest to you that the latter interpretation is more likely. Nandesuka 00:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion Nandesuka's comment, "The idea that one should need regular reminders not to tell other contributors that they suck is, at least on Wikipedia, a novel interpretation", is misleading because it ignores the fact that Alienus edited the offending comment when he realized that that it had been posted. [63] In my opinion, that type of misleading comment may be one of the reasons that Alienus does not trust Nandesuka's judgment or neutrality. -- DanBlackham 07:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This argument is itself misleading. Nandesuka wasn't the one to point it out, I was. And I didn't first see his comment in the history, I saw it when it popped up on the page. When I got around to responding, I noticed it was gone, so recovered the diff. His edit summary upon removal was "civility means never saying the obvious" [64].

That's not French for "sorry".Timothy Usher 08:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If the point is to protect the encyclopedia then a knowledgeable editor who adds good content has just been banned. My argument was not that he should be warned just that an incident should have been logged so that an independent admin could deal with it right from the beginning - not after tempers had flared. Where is this controversial? Unless you interpret WP:NOT to mean it doesn't matter at all how you do things. This is filling up the page and obviously getting nowhere so I shall finish here and learn some lessons even if no one else connected with this incident seems interested in doing so. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 00:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The "point" is to enforce wikipedia's guidelines, which is precisely what was done here. --InShaneee 00:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully have to disagree with InShanee here. The 'point' is indeed to protect the encyclopedia; enforcing policy purely for the sake of enforcing policy would be busywork at best and WP:POINT at worst.

While Alienus has made – and will hopefully in future continue to make – positive contributions to Wikipedia, he also has an unfortunate habit of making personal attacks on our other editors. (He has been frequently warned about this.) By making Wikipedia an unpleasant place for our other editors to work, he damages the encyclopedia. Our contributors are volunteers. Most of them do not and should not expect personal attacks in return for their work. Needlessly inflammatory and abusive treatment will drive off other good editors—editors who have managed to contribute to articles and abide by our policies on civility and personal attacks. Those editors are more likely to leave if they receive the impression that admins don't care about abusive behaviour.

In an ideal world, Alienus would take the hint from this block and reform his interaction style. I sincerely hope that this happens. However, if it does not, I would rather lose an editor who engages in personal attacks than many who do not. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't a one week block out of proportion? I suggest changing it to a 48-hour one, if only to prevent the impression that this is a punitive block. And don't forget - you can't put out a fire with no crocodile. AvB ÷ talk 01:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The circumcision related pages also have a cloud of suspicion hanging over them. In my opinion the analysis by Michael Glass of the problems with the circumcision related articles is accurate. [65] The items in point six are particularly relevant. "If the first editor protests in a way that is at all intemperate, the hostile editor invokes all the Wiki rules about incivility." -- DanBlackham 07:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Since Nandesuka acknowledged prior disagreements with Alienus, and reported the block on WP:AN, welcoming a review, I think it's quite appropriate for SOPHIA to comment on it. I know when I queried a block a few months ago, it wasn't easy to make my arguments, as I got little support, and there were some insinuations that I supported the behaviour of the user who had been blocked.

Having said that, I think the block was correct, though I'd have felt more comfortable if another admin had carried it out. I would feel a lot less comfortable if it had been done as part of an editing dispute, or if it had not been reported for review immediately after. Other admins have also reported blocks they had carried out when there was a slight question mark hanging over these blocks. There is no need to report for personal attacks or for 3RR prior to making a block. Any admin who spots something that justifies blocking can carry out a block; s/he doesn't have to have it reported by someone else first. So the only question mark in my view is that it was Nandesuka who carried out the block. However, the block was self-reported, and reviewed, and no admin saw fit to reduce it.

SOPHIA, I know that you're not trying to excuse Alienus's behaviour — what you've seen of it — but I think you may not have seen as much of it as some others. He has been hostile, aggressive, and potty mouthed. He threatens to get people banned. He violates 3RR and is full of moral indignation when his opponents do it. He kicks people who are down. He spits at people. He sneers constantly. He calls other editors "assholes", and then sends {{civil1}} warnings to editors who calmly refer to "a not untypical sneer from Alienus". He insinuates that a well-respected member of the arbitration committee has been dishonest in a usercheck (one which has been ratified by five other checkuser admins). He constantly calls admins biased and incompetent. He sympathizes with blocked users who engage in stalking. He refers to edits that he opposes as "vandalism". He constantly uses popups to revert non-vandalism edits, although he has been asked not to. He has insisted over and over again in addressing the editor User:Goodandevil (whose signature has been modified to say "Good") as "Evil", although he has been asked not to do so. He removes administrators' warnings from his talk page, but reverts users who remove his trolling comments from their talk pages. He makes false accusations over and over again. There are plenty of good editors who don't do those things. All in all, he is contributing towards a poisonous atmosphere here; and that is bad for Wikipedia.

I appreciate and respect your concern for fairness, and agree that it would have been better for the block to have been done by someone else. But it was self-reported immediately for review, and I'm quite sure that Nandesuka would have accepted it courteously if another admin had undone the block. The only one who changed it increased it. So I think we can take it that the block has now been, in a sense, ratified by uninvolved admins. AnnH ♫ 11:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As the admin who brought this back up, I just wanted to point out that Alienus had put an {{unblock}} up contesting the block -- I reviewed his history and seeing much of what AnnH described above, I felt the block was justified and left a note to that effect. To say that he was angry and that's why the personal attacks continued is, to my mind, a poor excuse. I understand blocks can be frustrating if you don't think they're valid, but somehow, continuing the behavior that led to the block after more than one admin discusses it with you just doesn't seem like the proper course of action. When Alienus suggested he would evade the current block and continue to harass after it was over, I brought it back here again for others to look at since I had already declined to unblock him once. While it may always be preferable to get someone else to do the block for you, I see no problem with Nandesuka stopping the problem and then asking for review. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 12:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Ann for your calm explanation. It seems there is a system but I haven't quite got the hang of it yet. I still feel that an uninvolved admin should have placed the initial block as there was no threat to the articles so immediate action was not required. This is a point that I hope will be accepted and will actively work against accusations of cabals and bias. I would also request that admins do not take questioning of their decisions personally as this is unhelpful to an open environment. The next step is how to plan for Alienus' return. Could I suggest his talk page is unblocked 48 hours before the week ban is due to be lifted to get a feel for how he is going to take this? Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 21:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had much experience with Alienus. My one encounter with him was watching him advocate for Pro-Lick to be unblocked, which I think for these purposes makes me pretty uninvolved... although what I saw there was enough for me to cock an eyebrow. He was essentially berating administrators (as a general populace) for not "doing their job" in unblocking Pro-Lick (who at the time had been blocked as a possible Amorrow sock, which he's not -- I eventually unblocked Pro-Lick after a checkuser showed the blocking rationale was wrong). I've looked over some of Alienus' edits, particularly ones recently to his talk page (in the interests of doing my "job"), and particularly after reading Ann's comments must say I support the week-long block. It's a shame because he's obviously a smart guy, but acting this way will get him shown the door pretty quickly, and not just for a week. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never questioned the validity of the block - just asked that in the current climate of cabal accusations proper procedures be followed. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 22:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Having read all the above I still think this will come across as a punishment of sorts, fully defensible from a process point of view but in this case, I think, simply guaranteed to make matters worse. Katefan0 may well be right about Alienus' being on collision course, but I feel this block is too long to be convincing to Alienus. There's a history here, and it's the history of an editor getting increasingly frustrated with process thwarting progress. I feel there should be a better way to convince Alienus that he can find a role where he can give what he has to offer to the encyclopedia and the world without all the conflicts. I guess this supports Sophia's salvage attempts. I find Alienus' behavior appalling at times, but people should realize how he came to this point and understand it's not all his own doing. I still hope the situation can be defused. AvB ÷ talk 22:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, and not in any way sniping at you, AvB, because I understand that you are trying to help: I just feel compelled to point out that there are at any given time thousands of people editing Wikipedia who are engaged in content disputes yet manage to not use the word "asshole" to describe other contributors. Nandesuka 22:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL re: nice vs. strong language juxtaposition. AvB ÷ talk 11:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

64.235.107.192/27

This block of addresses (apparently belonging to a school board) has been the source of a large number of obviously vandalous edits since at least the beginning of the year. I tracked this back from an edit of image:cartooon.gif a cartoon on the Igor Sikorsky page. Almost of the edits that I sampled from this block seem to have been obvious vandalism -- one seems to have undid previous vandalism. It's probably worthwhile to block the address block and/or contact the administrative team for the school board. Darkonc 21:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, you can start by tagging the talk pages with Template:SharedIPEDU. I for one would like to see a policy that any IP address identified as a school that is a source of presistent vandalism can be blocked for one hour (the length of a class period, generally) on one vandalism edit, without requiring 3 recent warnings per usual practice at AIV. Thatcher131 21:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • two points:

• • (1) This seems to be a relatively low-level (couple of pages a week) long term (3-4 months) vandalism spree, so blocking for an hour after a vandalism wouldn't do much.

• • (2) just how do I do the Template:sharedIPEDU ? Do I have to manually put the tag in each IP's talk page, or is there a nice way to add them bulk to the category page?

I have encountered a couple of more persistent vandals who will hit 5-10 pages over the course of a few minutes, and come back every other school day at about the same time, as if its a recurring study hall period held in the school library. What I unfortunately don't know is if any legit editors log in from that computer. I have seen admins here block school IPs for a month (until the end of term) and other admins on AIV refuse to block because it hasn't been warned 4 times on the same day. Regarding the template, I think you have to do it manually, but it shouldn't be that much work. Type it out once then copy and paste it (and remember to subst.) Thatcher131 03:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Mystork (talk · contribs) This user made his first edit on 05:46, 24 April 2006 [66] and has since become involved in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adam Carr. The user is clearly a sockpuppet.

Sgrayban (talk · contribs), the author of the RfC, was put under an indefinite ban for making threatening comments on 02:51, 24 April 2006. [67] Several hours later the Mystork account was started, picking up where Scott left off. 172 | Talk 01:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Could an admin please check Mystork's page. The user has been accused of being a sockpuppet. It's quite important to resolve this asap, because the user is very unhappy about the allegation! --Zleitzen 04:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• SpecialEdition (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is most likely another (this will be the 52nd) sock of VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He should probably be blocked, and this edit reverted - pm_shef 02:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Oi-yah. That one blocked too. I have that sock template all set in a textfile for my cut-and-pasting ease. Syrthiss 12:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Username Michael Jender (talk • contribs) may have been created to attack someone of that name. See also this edit by an anon. I apologise if this is the wrong place to report such incidents. CWC(talk) 02:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The user has already been indef blocked since the end of March: [68]. The attack image he uploaded was deleted: [69], and his vandalism reverted. This is the right spot to report things (either here or one of the specific pages linked at the very top of this page), but next time remember to check the timestamps ;) --bainer (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. I've reverted that anon vandalism (from Ohio State University, where the victim is a student) and subst'd Template:Indefblocked-vandalism onto the blocked account's user and talk pages, in case the next editor to catch this vandal is as clueless as I was. Cheers, CWC(talk) 07:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

... for me of all people to be bringing this up (but, hey, y'know, whatever), it appears that Ardenn's block has extended past the initial 41 hours his block was for, despite no extension of same showing in the log (link). The block was to have expired 41 hours after 00:40 CST 4/23/06, which translated to 17:41 CST 4/24/06. Yet he reports (link) he's still unable to edit. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 03:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

holy crap is all i can say . . . i have indefinitely blocked Appropriate_Username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly Labia Ears) and Flashmorbid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), previously discussed here on ANI, after finding this. this is the diff of what they were talking about. It seems to be a concerted attack on Waldb, which also involved portraying themselves as him with Ben_Wald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also indefinitely blocked. And again, holy crap.

Do we delete all this stuff to get rid of this kid's personal info? it is all in the history of Appropriate Username's talk as well. The page linked to above has to go as well, but i wanted to provide evidence before it dissapeared. Apologies if this wasn't in line with policy. It is currently protected in a commented-out version.

I also have to say i don't think i've ever been this upset about the actions of two editors in the entire time i've been here.

--Heah? 05:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Gross, these are some pretty strange people. I wish you had given some kind of warning of what I was going to be looking at. I have to say though, I see the crap, but what is holy about it?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have also blocked 212.138.64.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), the ip through which Flashmorbid admitted to carrying out his vandalism. after spending virtually all my time as a new admin dealing with the trolling on GNAA, my good faith is waning, and i have to ask why any self-admitted GNAA members are allowed to edit here . . . Some seem to do ok, but so did these two; they use ips for vandalism but were just stupid enough to talk about it with their usernames. --Heah? 06:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted that subpage--WP:BEANS and personal info in the history. ~MDD4696 01:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keith_Hernandez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) messing with the voting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrated Christian Apologetics.User: Jason Gastrich has an indefinite ban and there are futher details at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich. 05:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, The Kerala page has some factual errors. There is only one capital and its [Thiruvananthapuram]. There's nothing called a commercial capital or a judicial capital. There are some vested interests in proclaiming Kochi as commercial and judicial capital. Its factually incorrect and quite misleading to the millions of users visiting the Wikipedia. I request the administrator to look into these matters earnestly and do the needful. Thanks Rajkrish

Be bold and go into the article and fix these errors. You don't even need to log in.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 11:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Parateq has been listed for speedy deletion, but a number of users (mainly IP addresses) remove the speedy template as soon as it is added/reinstated. Obviously if this continues, the page won't get deleted. My suggestion is that the page either be deleted right away, or locked for a while to curtail the vandalism. Thanks in advance, Waggers 10:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorted now, thanks. Waggers 10:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What the heck? The featured article of the day was moved from Attalus I to Clydid Attalus I by a bot? Geogre 10:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I see an indefinite block has been put on the -bot. Still, let no one lift the block, please? And let's all watch out for idiocies like this in the future. Geogre 11:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the user/op has requested unblock twice already. Their edit to 'their' userpage says it all really --Alf ^melmac 11:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have protected the user's talk page because I am tired of clearing unblock requests.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 11:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I gather that the -bot was able to move the FA of the day because someone fell for the pity routine. We need to harden our hearts. (WikiLove does not equal WikiStupid.) Geogre 11:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey Merkey, banned as User:Gadugi returned again today as 67.177.52.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to edit the article on himself, Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey info about his banning and List of legal doctrines. His edits are at present still on top of all three articles. I will not revert them myself because I do not want to be blocked for "stalking a banned user" as some people were recently. I leave the decision on blocking him and reverting his edits to the admins.

The edits themselves concern a legal theory which degree of lunacy is hard for me to evaluate. The article about it Inevitable disclosure has been created on April 14 by WolfMountainGroup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), evidently the same banned user because this username is the name of his company (see Jeffrey Vernon Merkey). I leave the decision about banning this user and reverting his edits to the admins , as well. Friendly Neighbour 12:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

User also created http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Mountain_Project in a self-promotion article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.107.9 (talk • contribs)

Both the sockpuppets I mentioned above have been blocked (User:67.177.52.200 for 24 hours and User:WolfMountainGroup indefinitely. There's still the question of articles created by WolfMountainGroup (Jeff merkey) to promote his bussiness and his litigation history:

• Wolf Mountain Project
• Wolf Mountain Group
• Inevitable disclosure

Should the articles be deleted as ones by self-promoting banned user?

I also believe that Jeffrey Vernon Merkey article should be semi-protected (from anonymous vandalism) to prevent more easy edits from the banned user who used to brag about his multiple IP addressess.

-- Friendly Neighbour 18:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If Merkey is formally banned (by Jimbo or the Arbcom) then the articles are CSD G5. If not, I fear it's AFD. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo did indef block Merkey, so I'm pretty sure it's alright to go ahead and speedy those pages as advertising/vandalism by a banned user. --InShaneee 19:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Inevitable disclosure is more or less ok. Needs to be wikified. I posted a google link to tons of references. It is indeed a new, somewhat controversial and notable legal doctrine. --ThreeVryl 00:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox has been the subject of a revert war which has now descended on one side into legal threats. Hale-Byrne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked under 3RR for his insistence on removing material critical of the subject, but has since been followed by Gung (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Vbar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and now Jakomus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who are alleging libel. David | Talk 14:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who threatens legal action (or, as in these cases, gives us the tangential benefit of their legal opinion with the clear intent of supressing material) should be permablocked, and their deletions of sourced material reverted. The article in question (in its full form) is, however, poor. We can't really object to being accused of a hatchet-job when the "Criticism" section of a bio article is the largest one, and if the Adolf Hitler and Hawley Harvey Crippen articles manage to work a mature discussion of their subjects into balanced prose without a "criticism" section, surely no other one does. We should tolerate a "criticism" section no more than we'd tolerate a "praise" section, and to have both is to spiral into the bulgy-eyed valley of SPOV. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This time as 24.136.99.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Can an admin block please? Demiurge 16:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Has been (only) adding advertising links to several articles. He defends this because the pages also contain material he has written; he has been warned, and encouraged to either add to article texts directly, or use a blog that is not primarily advertising and link to that. Septentrionalis 16:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

New article and a copyvio; the content is copied from the "about" page of the web site the article is promoting. I added a "copyvio" tag, which was removed by the article creator. Rajeevranjanlall (talk · contribs) I restored the "copyvio" tag and put notes on the talk page and the user's talk page. No reply, and article creator removed "copyvio" tag again, restoring article to the original text. I can do nothing more without violating 3RR. Request appropriate action. Thanks. --John Nagle 17:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, removing a legitimate copyvio tag can be reverted as simple vandalism, especially after attempts to contact the editor in question. No danger of falling afoul of the 3RR. I'll keep an eye out. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Done here. --John Nagle 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed my username due to previous harrassment by Hamsacharya dan (talk · contribs), specifically a bogus accusation and a legal threat made on the talk page of my old username (User talk:Adityanath, now deleted). He is now stalking me on Wikipedia, revealing my previous username [70] by which I am well-known elsewhere on the net and had intentionally abandoned under m:Right to vanish. He also keeps changing my old userpage to point to my new username [71] [72]. Please let him know that such privacy violations are grounds for banning. Thanks. —Hanuman Das 21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please use this if you have a sockpuppet, it makes it easier for admins. I have two, User:Marleyknowe and User:Sunfazer on Wheels. --Sunfazer 22:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No more than a conventional anouncement. In any case as long as your socks are not abussive you don't have to reveal them.Geni 22:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I always assumed that the point of legitimate sockpuppets was to edit articles you didn't want other people to know you were editing, like paedophilia or Goatse or James Blunt. If you're willing to reveal that a sock account belongs to you, why not just use your own account to make those edits?

In fact, I can easily see WoW or WiC or whoever starting to slap this on their own accounts. They're clearly aware of current events on Wikipedia, so it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they were gleefully reading this right now. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I use them to subdevide my edits. For example User:Genidealingwithfairuse exists souly to sort out fair use issues involveing images and remove copyvios from articles. This gives me the function of a second watchlist.Geni 23:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahh. That makes sense. Though if someone hasn't suggested giving editors the possibility of setting up multiple watchlists, they should. I'd certainly like a separate watchlist for articles I'm actively involved in maintaining, as opposed to those I just reverted vandalism on once, if such a thing were possible. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

James Blunt... Hahahaha. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

See bugzilla:1492: Multiple watchlists and bugzilla:4354: Add comments field to watchlist items. Snoutwood (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Today 70.212.147.84 (talk · contribs) set about changing old comments by Anthony DiPierro (talk · contribs), including deleting one vote from an old page. When I challenged this user, he claimed to be Anthony, but refused to log in. After several warnings, I blocked that IP. Now he's back as 83.226.210.104 (talk · contribs), doing the same edit - which is entirely trivial, and which I'd gladly ignore but for the fear said troll would resume deleting stuff. It's hard to know if this is one of Anthony's wiki enemies or Anthony himself being obstinate. Opinions? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Rawhide4u recreated content for William Peyton Hubbard that was marked as copyvio. William Peyton Hubbard/Temp contained text so similar that errors of punctuation were repeated. I felt the best thing to do was mark the temp page copyvio and note here. Was that proper? AGF, can someone help this guy understand? Thanks. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:JiPish is an imposter of User:JiFish. See history of Jeremy Mills article for evidence. Please permablock. —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 00:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone named Veyklaver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created an account with a slight difference from my name, redirected his page to mine, and started issuing bogus warnings to people. I suspect (but cannot prove) that this is related to the user 24.61.27.114 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), as he has harassed me before, and one of his sockpuppets Ukiemob (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) became active today after weeks of inactivity, removing a sockpuppet template from his user page. For more information, please see the checkuser report, and Choess's archived complaint on WP:RFI about another of his sockpuppets, Jake Scorpio (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Please advise me what to do. —Veyklevar 03:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked it indefinitely as an impostor, rolled back his edits, and tagged his userpage as indefinitely blocked. Antandrus (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast action. Do I have any grounds for checking if there is a connection between my impostor and the other accounts I mentioned? Or am I better off just forgetting about it and moving on? —Veyklevar 03:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's often easier just to let it go. Trolls go away quicker when they're bored, and it looks like you've already established the connections between the other vandals/sockpuppets: adding one more blocked user to the list may not be worth the trouble. Antandrus (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I clicked on a diff for Wikipedia:Facebook — specifically [73] — and received the following warning from my Norton Internet Worm Protection:

04/25/2006 23:53:47 [EDT]
Attempted Intrusion "ICC Profile TagData Overflow" against your machine was detected and blocked.
Intruder: upload.wikimedia.org(207.142.131.228)(http(80)).
Risk Level: High.
Protocol: TCP.
Attacked IP: ENYA(172.17.13.16).
Attacked Port: 2450.

I can't double-check it for another 25 minutes or so because NIWP is blocking further attempts. Can someone check to see if that server has been infested? I apologize if this isn't the correct forum for this request, but it's the closest thing I found. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ambi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has reverted a number of other users on this MfD; she initially removed much of the closing admin's rationale for closing the debate as a keep, and other users disputed this. Since there's not much discussion, and I appear to be one of the few disinterested people still having this page cluttering their watchlist, I thought this is something the wider community ought to look at. We could also resolve the issue of admins "editorialising" in their closing of deletion debates at the same time. I know I editorialise when I close contentious AfDs, so ought I to gag myself? Hm... Johnleemk | Talk 05:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, admins should editorialize when they feel necessary. Transparency is a good thing and deletions are discussions not votes, so we know the admin had do to some thinking. And even if one thought that admins should not editorialize, I can't see why one would remove the admin's explanation for their reasoning. JoshuaZ 05:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've suggested Ambi just add a reply to the closing comment instead of removing it, and she has. Hopefully that can be the end of it. I agree with JoshuaZ that transparency is a good thing. — Matt Crypto 07:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I editorialise all the bloody time when closing AfDs. I see nothing wrong with the practise. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)