Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive105

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


-Ril- is Back ![edit]

He is just ignoring us and is using his sock puppets to avoid his Block! What can be done? He has more than one "tell" that gives him away. --Sott 08:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle: unblocking[edit]

I went bold and moved it to a subpage: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle - the thread is 190 kilobytes long. Misza13 T C 17:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Reiki vandal and suspected sock puppet[edit]

User vandalised Reiki with this edit. Given the history of edits, can someone please check if the account is a sockpuppet. Thanks. Mccready 08:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Mcready. You are most unhelpful. Why don't you try talking to me? You bet I know my way around Wikipedia. Your behaviour is borderline breaching WP:OWN on that article. You are making the mistake of thinking you couldn't possibly be in the minority when actually, you are in the minority. Your edits are unwanted. Get over yourself. I am nobodies sockpuppet. I am simply anonymous. 11:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Further to that, which user are you also accusing? Who do you claim I am sockpuppet of? I hope you notified them. 04:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if he's a sockpuppet, but he was a vandal. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Encyclopedist (aka Clyde vandal) announces massive vandalism attack[edit]

A few weeks back, Encyclopedist blew up at User:John Reid, and launched a major sock-puppetting attack on John. When the attack was traced back to Encyclopedist and the underlying IP was blocked, Encyclopedist staged a showy exit from the project. Except he has never fully left, continuing to request unblocking of the IP itself. This request has been denied several times.

Now, on that IP talk page, he says that he was the "Clyde vandal" (not familiar with that vandal myself), that he's about to gain access to a large number of different computers from which to edit, and about to launch some new, major vandal attacks against John Reid, User:Mackensen, and the project in general.

No idea how credible the threat is, but this guy has definitely displayed some finesse in his previous attacks on John. Mostly wanted to toss this up here to get a few more eyes on alert if he does begin his threatened assault tomorrow. - TexasAndroid 18:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

He was indeed the Clyde vandal (see User:Essjay/Checkuser/Cases/CIyde); I knew at the time there was a connection through university IPs, but because he was considered an upstanding Wikipedian, I decided that it was another student at the university. It is entirely possible that he's graduated now, but if not, a phone call to the University's ITS department, and perhaps to the Dean's office, will clear it up immediately, permanently, and to the satisfaction of all involved. Essjay (TalkConnect) 02:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Erm, if it helps in identifying him, here's a picture I took of him (sitting next to Jimbo Wales) at the St. Pete meetup Raul654 02:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
(Presumably after seeing my above post) Encyclopedist emailed me tonight to say that he will not be vandalizing anymore. A call to his university is not necessarily. Raul654 03:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
He has posted to my Talk page as User:MyApology and sounds sincere. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Phaedriel is being nailed by a stalker at the moment. Those of you who are on the mailing list know about it. Anything that anyone can do to help would be appreciated. Right now, more than anything else, Phaedriel needs our support and I hope people will give it to her. Her userpage has information on what's been going on. --Woohookitty(meow) 13:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Could I just add that she's asked to be left alone in quiet contemplation. Let's try to respect that. --kingboyk 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
But she also posted about the stalking on her user page, so she is not trying to keep it secret. NoSeptember talk 14:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
We need to find ways of protecting, defending and supporting users who come under the kind of psychological warfare attacks she was subject to. I suppose one thing we could do is encourage users who need anonymity to preserve it from their first edit and choice of user name. A beginning user has little reason to anticipate the day they may be required to deal with difficult people who will exploit personal information. Fred Bauder 14:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely agree, although the last time I saw this topic discussed, it got limited response. NoSeptember talk 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I wanted to add language in the registration dialog discouraging people from disclosing their actual identities (well, at least pointing out that several people have received real-life harrassment due to activities on wikipedia), but couldn't convince anyone else: [1] and [2] were the strongest statements I could get in. Demi T/C 18:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's important that those that wish to remain anonymous do so by not reveiling their real name, their place of work, where they hang out, etc. I would be cautious about telling people to not post personal information by ensuring the wording doesn't freak people out and cause them to not contribute. I don't think she is under any potentiality of losing her job...just her privacy perhaps.--MONGO 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we can do a few things, or Wikimedia could, to help prevent one type of stalking (threats to work). We should probably get the Foundation to have a couple of letters on hand that explain to employers that the named person is a volunteer and might well be harrassed for working for the good of mankind. That would help in that part of things (and it can be written in a neutral manner that doesn't take a position on a particular argument). Additionally, though, we need to be able to generate multiple calls to authorities to indicate the severity of a personal stalking. Geogre 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I can see no reason the foundation cannot lend a hand in the manner you have described.--MONGO 03:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Guillen (talk, contribs)[edit]

This user has begun to try my patience.

He has twice vandalized my user page [3], [4], accusing me of being some kind of Catholic anti-evangelical bigot. (For the record, I am not Catholic - I am a conservative, evangelical, born again, Bible-believing, whatever term you want to use - they all mean the same to me, Christian.)

He has three times completely replaced without comment a well-written Spiritual warfare article with a POV/original research piece. [5], [6], [7]. See afd discussion of his version.

He also left an inflammatory message on User:Jim Henry's talk page [8].

He has posted material on Plymouth Brethren several times that is block copied from - [9], [10]

I, and others have left several messages to User talk:Guillen attempting to explain the problems with his edits, but there has been no acknowledgement of them other than calling us evil Catholics.

If you look at his contributions, there seems to be something of a language barrier. Many of his contributions are in more or less broken English and he seems to see a strong bias where there is none. Assuming good faith, is it possible for someone who speaks his native language (Swedish?) to engage him on his talk page about these issues?

One other diff - [11] - to an AFD of an article he wrote - tries my ability to assume good faith.

BigDT 15:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  • content dispute?-- 15:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Vandalism of a user page, repeatedly posting copyvio material, replacing articles with personal essays, and personal attacks go beyond a content dispute BigDT 15:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I have reverted what I viewed as a personal attack placed on User:BigDT's userpage by this user. I also note that every edit he has made has been marked as minor. The user hasn't made an edits since the three talk messages I left earlier today, including instructions on both of those points. GRBerry 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User:THE KING and OR in Monash University dorm articles[edit]

THE KING (talk · contribs) has been edit warring (albeit slowly) over the inclusion of what I consider blatant POV OR to articles about dorms and related topics to Monash University. See this for his most recent attempt to restore this content, which at best describes without any hope of verification (or encyclopedic worth) what the social atmosphere of the dorm is as far as drinking and bar hopping, and at worst makes such claims as the prevalence of homosexuality on certain dorm floors, and the masturbation habits of certain students. See also [12] and [13] for a couple more examples. THE KING has complained about this on my talk page, taking it as a personal vendetta, so I'm posting here because of that and the fact that I'm rather sick of policing these stupid dorm articles (see links at Monash Residential Services). Postdlf 17:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I think what postdlf is trying to get at here is that he thinks it's acceptable to just flollok about the place reverting peoples edits because they contain something that he doesn't like. If you dont like it, remove the offending statement - don't revert the entire edit, which i may have worked on for some time to get rid of pov and OR material. eg [14], why did he have to de-wikify the links too? In my opinion, postdlf is just a warmonger who cares more about noticeboards like this and pinning people up on them than he does about the integrity of the encyclopedia, and i said as much on his talk page. Yes, if you remove the entire edit i do take it as a personal vendetta and the only verdict is vengeance, a vendetta held as a votive - not in vain - for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. THE KING 17:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Or we could save ourselves a lot of trouble and just delete the entire series of articles on "Monash University residence halls" as non-notable? I don't see any claims to notability in any of the six articles, and as long as they exist, they're going to attract nonsense like this. Demiurge 18:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with that option as well. Postdlf 18:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well we all know they wouldn't pass AFD. Wikipedia's politics have swung to deletionism far too much over the last year for that to happen. I guess it just comes down to whether you are mature enough to let them be? Or do you want to take the easy road, the one which you know will be worst for wikipedia? THE KING 18:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I've taken the liberty: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monash Residential Services. Demiurge 19:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
      • You have demonstrated your immaturity as expected. THE KING 19:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Strange how placing such information in Wikipedia is mature, but removing it is not. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Please dont enter into this discussion without the appropriate context, morv. Removing this info is not the cause of my concern. Dont make me add you to my List of people who need a kick in the arse for taking the easy road. THE KING 19:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm reverting your edits because the "faggot" reference on your user page is a personal attack, and in my opinion so is your "List of people who need a kick in the arse for taking the easy road" because it's reporting what you see as editor deficiencies in an aggressive and confrontational manner. However, that said I've made my point I won't be reverting any more. Please have a think about it. --kingboyk 19:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that THE KING's User page specifically attacks the principles of NOR and Verifiability. I'm sorry, but those are official Wikipedia policies, and you'll have to get them changed before you try avoiding them. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The AFD is taking care of the dorm articles, but he's also continued to insert an OR/student vanity paragraph into Passion Pop, with such beautifully encyclopedic statements as this: "Many prefer this drink over beer, and since it is as cheap if not cheaper, it often finds its way into low class University functions, either straight or in a punch."[15] I've already removed it (again), but I also think the rest of that article needs to be pruned for OR beyond that obvious paragraph. Postdlf 00:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway unilaterally cancels satanism userbox restoral discussion[edit]

Tony has unilaterally closed the deletion review of the Satanism userbox with the comment Closing this because such a template would obviously bring Wikipedia into disrepute.). See [16].

In my opinion this is an inappropriate use of admin powers and/or clerk powers; there are legitimate devout Satanists out there, and rejecting the presense of a userbox for them absent a policy which prevents all religious userboxes in template space is religious bigotry against a minority, tiny and kooky as it may be. Georgewilliamherbert 20:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd fully support this decision if we also got rid of userboxes for other religions across the board. Otherwise, it would appear that we're singling out the poor Satanists. Al 20:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Support I support your proposed solution of deleting all of them. --pgk(talk) 20:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Count me in as supporting this proposal as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Alienus, I concur that we should get rid of all such userboxes under proposed T2. However, the failure to delete any one such template can always be used to prevent deletion of another. Conversely, the deletion of any one can be cited as a precedent to delete another. You can be assured of my support in deleting any userbox falling under T2, regardless of ideology. Nevertheless, I think you'd agree that if we must be discriminatory, this isn't a bad one to see off - Satanism is particularly controversial as religions go, and identification with it will give Wikipedia a bad reputation in a way that the major religions will not.Timothy Usher 20:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
This would be much easier if every single deletion was not followed by this kind of messy rigmarole at WP:DRV…we could simply wipe the lot but you can imagine the storm of protest which would ensue. To be quite frank, it strains the limits of WP:AGF to believe that absolutely everybody who says "why not just delete the lot" would actually support such a move if it occurred, and it is mostly anticipation of the backlash which keeps the mop in the bucket. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Strains the limits? Quote me: Delete the lot of them.Timothy Usher 21:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm confident that this is best for Wikipedia. I don't think the goal of producing a high quality encyclopedia can be served by encouraging, though the provision of templates saying "I'm a satanist" and the like, the use of Wikipedia's website for social networking and coordination of work between adherents of satanism. It could only bring the whole enterprise into disrepute to permit such abuse. Therefore it's inappropriate to hold a DRV-style debate where traditionally the item is restored if a certain proportion of editors vote to restore it. We cannot make such a decision on the basis of votes. Perhaps a discussion on the talk page of the template might be appropriate, though I think it would require a very strong case to be made for this particular template. --Tony Sidaway 20:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The flaw here is that you are unilaterally deciding for a small, generally despised, and yet legitimate religion, while simultaneously not intervening to delete other more popular religious userboxes.
Whether religious userboxes should uniformly be removed or not is a completely differnet question than whether removing simply the tiny helpless minority is a policy of discrimination that Wikipedia should put up with.
If you want them to go, then apply that to all of them. I agree with the wider argument (not enough to actively initiate such a move, but in principle). Applying it to fringe religions one at a time but not the big ones is a grossly abusive manner of solving the problem, however.
Either initiate a blanket removal of all such userboxes, or leave the little ones alone. In between is using your personal judgement as to the validity of particular religions to substitute for Wikipedia policy consensus, and it's not good WP policy for us to let you do that. The judgement that Satanism as a template brings disrepute, but Christianity or Islam or Buddhism don't, is obviously flawed and must be overturned. Georgewilliamherbert 20:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with Tony Sidaway.
Georgewilliamherbert wrote, "The judgement that Satanism as a template brings disrepute, but Christianity or Islam or Buddhism don't, is obviously flawed and must be overturned."
You have got to be kidding. Say it's unfair, fine, but don't pretend you can't see the difference. Even if a Satanist yourself, surely you will acknowledge that your religion (rightly or wrongly) has a poor reputation among the general public.Timothy Usher 20:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not a Satanist, no. And Satanism is far from the only religion to have a poor reputation among elements of the general public, or of the general public as a whole. Anti-Islamic sentiment was rather high on Sept 12, 2001, for example, but that would have been a grossly illegitimate reason to nuke a Muslim userbox that day.
The logic that Tony is using generally (that we shouldn't have such userboxes as a class) is fine. The specific logic, that because a majority of people don't like one particular religion we can nuke its userbox, is clearly flawed. Unpopularity is as a general rule not a valid reason to delete wikipedia-Anything. In attacking Satanism's popularity to defend Tony, you completely miss the point.
Georgewilliamherbert 20:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Guess what? It doesn't matter if something has a good or bad reputation. First of all, "reputation" is regionally and culturally arbitrary (see Islam). Secondly, WP:NOT (#1.9 in case you're not familiar with that page). Your position only comes down to what you think of the topic. But even if you could take a worldwide poll to determine a topic's reputation, that still wouldn't make it unsuitable. To build an NPOV encyclopedia requires NPOV policies, and NPOV administration of those policies. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 21:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is ludicrous. Deleting an in-progress DRV just because you don't like it is inappropriate. It would be one thing if it were WP:SNOW, but it was even money what was going to happen. (By the way, I voted or opined or whatever we call these things Keep Deleted, but that doesn't mean that the process should be terminated.) Also, User:Improv deleted User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian despite the fact that it has been through eleventy billion TFDs and DRVs and been upheld every time. IMO, both of these actions are indefensible and should be refersed immediately. BigDT 20:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fully support tony sidaway. wikipedia does not need such template. Ideally, users shouldn't have the need to proclaim beliefs strongly on their userpages (remember? userpages are for wikiwork content), but if a user must do it, he can just write it so, it's the template what it's unneeded, has no point (since users can just write "I'm a satanist" on their pages, no censorshi issues either), and thus it was ok to get rid of it. Likewise with all political parties and religion userboxes. They are not good for wikipedia. -- Drini 20:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Then nominate them all for deletion, don't just start with small, unpopular ones. And don't let Tony short-circuit legitimate policy discussions based on his judgement alone. Georgewilliamherbert 20:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is all or nothing, but not selectively based on whatever arguments. If religeon ones are allowed, they are all allowed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is a policy to disallow religion-declaring userboxes, then it should be used uniformly. Deciding that Satanism, or any other specific religion, should be deleted is entirely partisan, which violates the spirit of WP:NPOV completely.
If Satanism is disreptuable, where do we draw the line and who draws it? Should we go after the religions that proselytize door to door? How about the ones that support polygamy? How about just the ones that we consider heretical or evil? Is this ChristianWikiPedia? Al 20:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I just want to say that this AN/I is not supposed to be a vote on the template itself or its worth, but is a comment regarding the unilateral decision to skip such a vote. In this, I think Georgewilliamherbert is correct in saying there's no particular reason why process couldn't have been allowed to continue as it was already doing before Tony stepped in and decided it was pointless. I see no real reason to skip it except Tony saying that in his mind it is clear. That's great, Tony, but looking at the voting record makes it clear that it isn't an "obvious" answer, and the mixed response here makes it clear that there is some reason to discuss it. Rather than having a discussion-about-a-discussion, the original should just be restored and people with opinions about it should go there to discuss the merits or problems with the template. --Fastfission 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Second proposed remedy here of restoring the DRV and let it run its course. As a secondary proposal, Tony should initiate a Miscellany for Deletion for all religious userboxes. Georgewilliamherbert 21:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Remarks like such a template would obviously bring Wikipedia into disrepute constitute an attack on the entire religion of satanism. It's ironic that the people who are against "inflammatory and offensive" userboxes use such divisive and inflammatory comments in their rhetoric.  Grue  20:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Support Sidaway. Out-of-line DRVs do not need to remain open or run their course. We're building an encyclopedia. Having this in the template namespace does not contribute to this goal. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 20:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should do away with DRV and let Tony decide the suitability of all WP content. I propose a poll. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 20:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy -- Drini 21:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I Support letting Tony handle all deletion reviews. Sounds like an excellent idea. --Cyde↔Weys 20:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Tom Harrison Talk 21:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Good idea.Timothy Usher 21:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
after the last lot of damage the inclusionists did to the DRV process I think not.Geni 00:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Christians have killed a lot more people than Satanists, historically. I think the faster we speedy all ideological templates the better. Making any argument based on the popularity of the religion in question is wholly inappropriate. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to deleting all the religion userboxes, since Jimbo discourages their use. However, to say that we can't get rid of satanism because we have Christianity is not logical. It's most unlikely that "this user is a Christian" could harm the reputation of Wikipedia to the same extent as "this user is a satanist". Let us recall that while Jimbo seems to discourage all "this user is" boxes, and therefore can be said to disapprove of the "straight", "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual" ones, the only one where he actually intervened (forcefully) was the one that said "this user is a pedophile". It seems silly to claim that a controversial userbox does no more harm to the reputation of the project than an uncontroversial one. AnnH 21:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, so indenting)

Pedophilia is, for good reason, illegal. Satanism is, for equally good reason, not. The idea that a Satanism userbox could somehow "harm the reputation of Wikipedia" is silly. Rather, you appear to be projecting your personal tastes on us. You are, of course, entitled to your beliefs. However, you are not entitled to force them on us.
What truly harms the reputation of Wikipedia is the accurate perception that it is a haven for bigotry. I'm absolutely certain that if I nominated all the Christian userboxes on your user page for deletion, they would survive. What does that tell you about our genuine commitment to WP:NPOV? Al 21:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Strictly from a legal standpoint, this is false. Pedophilia is, depending on the point of view, a paraphilia or a sexual preference, and is not illegal. In must global jurisdictions, however, acting on it is. RadioKirk talk to me 22:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand Musical Linguist's point, and it's clear that Satanism is less "reputable" than Christianity (in the circles we care about), but that's not my point. I'm not making the "silly" claim of Ann's last sentence above. I am claiming that it's not our place to even enter the arena of saying "this belief is reputable, this other one isn't." Once you decide that about one belief, you have to start deciding it about others, at at some point, you find yourself making completely indefensible decisions. Better to just treat all beliefs equally, as something inappropriate for template space, like Jimbo said. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

How about we put "This user follows the cult of <Cyde/Tony Sideaway>" at {user satanist}. It'll go over great. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 21:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Avillia: How is this comment helpful? ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
How is this discussion helpful? We are once again dragging this whole mess into AN:I and we are continuing to set a record for most Wikidrama in a week. Can we just agree to shift to a complete neutral on TfDing established userboxes until someone makes a policy which gains consensus? --Avillia (Avillia me!) 00:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What's likely to harm the reputation of Wikipedia is not consistent, and is not based on reason or justice; It's based on popular perception. If anyone thinks This user is a Satanist will not negatively effect the reputation of Wikipedia, that person is out of touch with what most people think. Tom Harrison Talk 21:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I give my thoughts in the form of a userbox:

{{subst:Userbox | border-c = #999 | border-s = 1 | id-c = #DDD | id-s = 14 | id-fc = black | info-c = #EEE | info-s = 8 | info-fc = black | id = [[Image:Face-sad.svg|45px]] | info = This user feels that [[Wikipedia:Process is Important|out of process]] [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletions]] subject to an administrator's whims rather than [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] damage Wikipedia more than any userbox ever could. | float = left }}
Face-sad.svg This user feels that out of process deletions subject to an administrator's whims rather than consensus damage Wikipedia more than any userbox ever could.

BigDT 21:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This closure was overturned by another admin. Can we all leave this alone here now? There are better places to debate whether userboxes should be deleted. And this page is unlikely to produce any stronger remedy than overturning the early closure. GRBerry 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Second. Off to the T1/T2 debates now that it's been restored to normal WP process. Georgewilliamherbert 22:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Get rid of all userboxes that advocate or even identify a point of view. Incrementally, or all at once. There has been plenty of time for them to be userified (and I will happily undelete and userify on request any I judge not to be directly divisive) now. They need to go. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This point is now more-or-less moot, except that I would expect Tony to recuse himself from taking action on these particular userboxes. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The proposed policy just failed consensus and, thus, the war wages on. It's time to subst the userboxes to the users' spaces and, as for the templates, "wipe them out. All of them." (Well, excepting Babel, of course.) Let's put this damned thing to bed. RadioKirk talk to me 22:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The following comment was deleted as collateral damage in a revert - see [17] for original diff

Tony seems to be EXTREMELY controversial. Applying the same logic, why do we not delete him? I'm not suggesting that this be done; I'm just showing your reasoning applied to a different subject. --mboverload@ 22:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The logic of the userbox deletionist logic would certainly suggest that as a first step toward a solution. I'm not in favor of it, either. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to look at the word "unilaterally" in this section title from all angles and I just don't see it. What I see is Tony having widespread support for his actions and yet, his closure was reverted. Pot, Kettle? Oh, and I support this closure and continuing to remove these from the template space. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 23:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Widespread support? So you will have no problem getting a consensus together to make this kind of action policy?Geni 00:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Always the devil's advocate? I'm sure you're quite well aware of the fiasco that has been consensus making on userboxes given the flaring tempers, misunderstanding of discussion vs vote, etc. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Which means that no position has widespread support. Thus it is not a good idea to claim it. Wikipedia's normal solution to a lack of consensus is inaction. For some reason people don't appear to be ready to accept that course this time. Makes life interesting though.Geni 02:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Or that piling on and favoring votes over discussion has become the latest fetish. So creating scads more userboxes is inaction? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Latest?Geni 10:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Could I give you some more straw? You seem to be spreading it around rather thickly. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 10:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You seemed to indicate that useing voteing over disscussion is something new. It isn't in any case I prefer block voteing to admins trying to force issues. People trying to settle stuff by block voteing does tend to work out in the end, it also tends to involve less screaming.Geni 11:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway's reasoning is flawed. If he thinks all religion boxes should be deleted, he should say so in his reasoning, rather than singling out Satanism. Otherwise, if he wanted to delete Satanism boxes but not other religions, that'd be highly inappropriate. Andjam 01:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony action was fine, and the deletions should be even more widespread as several editors on both sides of the issue have said here. Then all that energy that is being expending defending things that have nothing at all to do with building an encyclopedia can be used to...well, build an encyclopedia! Rx StrangeLove 02:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I support Tony in this matter. Userboxes, for the most part, simply need to go away.--MONGO 03:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I support Tony's action, though I think his comment was out of line and insulting. I'd like to see all userboxes eliminated except those specifically of value to encyclopedia building. Problem is defining that subset; right now, mine say I'm a native English speaker, a marginal German speaker, and a musician; each of these says what I do, not what I believe. I think that's where the distinction lies; but there are nasty fuzzies there. (User Catholic might be bad. User Catholicism scholar might be OK. What about User Catholic priest?) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
That's too easy... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 04:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
We can ask, what is the likely app? Language competency invites others to come to us for translation. That's practical. On the other end of the spectrum, "This user is interested in X" is a barely-disguised way to preserve the inappropriate userbox, complete with preexisting links to thusly-marked users.
There us actually no need for templates declaring our "interests", except to facilitate talk-page spamming, vote-stacking and the like.
One pillar of T2 policy ought be that offending templates must be deleted, not redirected. That way, we can't keep our partisan tokens through dishonest language.Timothy Usher 05:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I renew the following suggestion stated above. "This closure was overturned by another admin. Can we all leave this alone here now? There are better places to debate whether userboxes should be deleted. And this page is unlikely to produce any stronger remedy than overturning the early closure. GRBerry 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)" The template is back in deletion review. Better places to discuss T1 and T2 include but are certainly not limited to Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates. GRBerry 14:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Michaellovesnyc[edit]

User:Michaellovesnyc has been making repeated edits that push his point of view on Mail-order bride. User: is also obviously him (they both edit mail-order bride almost exclusively and Michael responds on the anon user's talk page). Michael's changes have been discussed on his talk page and elsewhere, and he seems unable to accept that most of his edits are violations of Wikipedia policy. After I warned him on about the inappropriateness of his edits on his talk page and drew his attention to a mediator's opinion Michael made a new series of edits, including restoring the disputed material, falsely claiming "the mediator is on my side". His latest preferred version of the article is worse than ever, with vast amounts of OR and POV material, including blaming "feminist groups who distort the truth" for a law and bringing up unsourced stories "which the media will not report". He hasn't discussed any of these most recent changes on the article talk page, but has referred to me as a "know-it-all" and "cyber thug" who is trying to "intimidate" him and others. I reverted the page and mentioned it again on his talk page but I suspect he will keep reverting to his favorite version. Perhaps I should have brought this to Requests for mediation instead, but I think this is a matter of multiple blatant violations of policy, not just an unpopular point of view that would need mediation between two sides. Editors (especially Gavin) have been trying to reason with Michael for months (he has also been warned about vandalism before, but removed the warnings from his talk page). What should be done next? --Grace 22:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Michael's (ostensible) point-of-view, but I think his repeated insertions are rather disruptive; in any event, he seems not to appreciate WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:RS, and WP:V. In order that the community might express their views apropos of his conduct, and in order, perhaps, that he might be edified as to how properly to edit with respect to Mail-order bride and surrounding issues, in order that his sometimes valuable contributions might be used, you might do well to open a user-conduct RfC. In situations such as this, it is always advisable, IMHO, to seek community participation and evaluation; a consensus will likely develop for or against Michael's edits, and he (or those who think him to be editing wrongly) might better understand how best to edit. Joe 22:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Mediators from the Mediation Cabal have agreed that he's disruptive, but other than that consensus has been difficult to achieve, since only about 3 users have paid any attention to this article in the long-term (him and two who oppose him). He's certainly been informed of how his edits and conduct violate Wikipedia policy, but he seems to view these warnings as threats. I will be pursuing RfC. Thank you. --Grace 03:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Would someone else like to deal with this?[edit]

I mentioned this above and got no response. If there is somewhere else I should go, please let me know where to take it.

See personal attacks [18], [19], [20]

See uninteligible English [21]

See user's other contributions ... basically, everything is along these lines [22]

BigDT 23:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing constructive coming from that account, but I still have to think that he's just doing what he thinks is best. I left a final warning on his talk page; let me or anyone else know if he continues behaving as such, as I think a block would then be in order. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you BigDT 00:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I've now blocked him for a week after he posted a personal attack on my talk page, which attacked Protestants and others on Wikipedia. I checked his contribs since I posted a last warning and saw that he is still editing in the same fashion, deliberately inserting bias and attacking other religions and individuals. Anyone who finds the block inappropriate may feel free to lengthen, shorten, or remove it altogether. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate conduct by admin InShaneee[edit]

Pantherarosa was listed on WP:PAIN for making personal attacks against User:Melca. [23] When I looked into the situation, I noticed that Pantherarosa had been removing warnings. I restored the warnings and add the do not remove warnings tag to his/her talk page. This caused Pantherarosa to start attacking me. I elevated the NPA warnings but (s)he continued. I continued to elevate the warnings but to no avail. I became annoyed and made one incivil remark to Pantherarosa. InShaneee posted a NPA warning on my page. [24] When I contacted him about it [25], he admitted that my comments were not personal attacks, but still refused to change the warning. He also said that all of my edits violated WP:CIVIL [26], when in fact there was only one. [27] When I asked him for an explaination[28], he pretty much resorted to "it is because I say so". [29] [30] [31] [32]

Secondly, one of my comments was incivil towards Pantherarosa who had repeatedly made personal attacks against me. Wikipedia's policies go for all users regardless of circumstances, so an incivil warning should stay on my talk page. However, because I had made one incivil comment toward the other user, InShaneee refused to block Pantherarosa. Not only is this a double standard, but I was not even the one who had the brunt of Pantherarosa's attacks. As another user said on InShanne's talk page: Obviously you aren't interested to even consider that your action isen't the proper conduct of an experienced administrator. I agree with this completely, and to add on that InShaneee is refusing to punish Pantherarosa to make a point to me, even though I wasn't even the person Pantherarosa was originally attacking. The full discussion on WP:PAIN is here: Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard#Pantherarosa (talk • contribs) Paul Cyr 21:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Administrator, User:InShaneee exhibited a double standard when blocking me. He blocked me and stated on my Talk Page, "You have been blocked for 24 hours for disruption. If a user comes here, to an encyclopedia, asking for information, it shouldn't be difficult to point him to such info". However, I spelled out for him expilicity how the answers I gave, difference, were w links that are sometimes in and sometimes out of the article, Scientology but are the most direct possible answers to the user's specific question. I also spelled out to him why the link answering, "when did the present Church of Scientology start?" is not present in the article today. InShaneee came up with the term, "linkspamming" to describe his blocking me for that answer. Then, in discussion on my talk page, User:InShaneee he made me a promise. "Fax us over some of those high-level OTs and I PROMISE you it'll get fixed up." [33] Left unsaid was "I'm with the Cartel, you should betray Scientology and Fax "us" confidential documents." Whether he is aware or not, such an invitation is unethical to make and would be unethical to fulfill.Terryeo 22:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with both users above. User:InShaneee's conduct is not proper for an administrator. There's more to being an admin than giving warnings out like candies and refusing to discuss related issues. User:InShaneee was adamant that accusing someone of trolling even if they are a troll constitutes as a personal attack, when I displayed that he himself has accused other users of trolling and that it's hypocritical he blocked me for 24 hours in retaliation.--Eupator 03:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Being unpopular is usually par for the course for admins, especially those who have SP type roles. I personally think that InShaneee is a good lad, a bit of a laugh. Thanks. Wallie 05:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe our statements don't address his sense of humor, but address his judgement. Though his sense of humor would be a subject that might be explored. :) Terryeo 05:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You know what's even funnier? I was warned by InShaneee for making a similar remark as Wallie just did. I imagine that if you weren't defending him, he'd give you a civility warning. In fact, mocking a complaint is incivil, so why don't you deserve a warning? Paul Cyr 20:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I realise you were hurt at my comments. I have said sorry on your talk page. I did not want to get in the way of your compliant. Wallie 00:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I have no problem with being called "a good lad". :) --InShaneee 00:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Inshaneee is quite right in saying that calling someone a troll is a personal attack even if they are trolling. Just like calling an obese person "fat" is a personal attack. Just like calling someone with cerebral palsy a "spastic" is a personal attack. Just like telling an ugly person they're ugly is a personal attack. Just like calling someone with low intelligence "dumb" is a personal attack. I could go on but I think you get the message. The accuracy or otherwise of a personal attack does not make it any less a personal attack. In fact, usually the accurate personal attacks are the most hurtful. Snottygobble 05:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Not always. WP:NPA is pretty clear that the comment may be considered personal attack "if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom." If it is a relevant and fundamentally informative observation, then by definition it's not a personal attack. FeloniousMonk 05:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Calling anyone a troll is always wrong. It is a device to get your own way when editing articles. Wallie 18:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Snottygobble on this. There is an additional argument here about not feeding trolls; calling a troll a troll is an indication to them that they have provoked an emotional response, and as such is an incitement to troll some more. Better just to leave the default messages. --bainer (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Eupator, can you provide diffs of where InShaneee accused others of trolling? I just want to make sure all claims are linked to with diffs so that we don't have people accusing others of lying. Paul Cyr 05:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Just look at his contributions, you will find many instances such as this [34], I merely pointed out that it's hypocritical for which he blocked me for 24 hours.--Eupator 15:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't see anything wrong. Will (E@) T 17:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I was not going to engage in this, partly because I qualified InShaneee warning against me, Eupator and Paul Cyr as a lack of experience from this administrators part, but to my surprise having seen him/her sign a disput which I don't ever remember having seen him/her even being engaged in or involved in or having even edited those articles or their talk page [35], I had to conclude that this was a retaliation to my remark about him/her [36], [37]. Administrators should not act like this, retaliating against a user like this reflect immaturity. Also, I am troubled that some veterans find it nothing wrong about InShaneee block against Eupator. While in practice there is nothing wrong in blocking someone for not respecting a guideline or policy, that the principal alleged victim here of Eupator remark was InShaneee, and to the measure that he/she took the decision to block him, I believe, InShaneee made this something personal and obviously reflect unexperience and somehow a lack of judgement. Also, that Lutherian is a troll, I will repeat this and should never be blocked for this. A checkusers has reflected that he is indeed a troll, he has done nothing in Wikipedia other then trolling and slandering members. Insteed of provoquing veterans of Wikipedia by giving warnings because those veterans have retaliated against a troll, he/she should work to prevent such things to happen. Fad (ix) 18:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll is no different than calling someone a vandal - the characterization should only be made when assuming good faith is no longer reasonable. Otherwise, it shouldn't be considered a personal attack, as it indicates specifically whether an editor's edits primarily disrupt Wikipedia; it doesn't address any personal trait. HKT 20:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, though I think in most cases there are far better alternatives to using such terms. If a troll needs to be dealt with, he should certainly be dealt with, but I just don't see how saying "You're a troll" solves anything in most cases. --InShaneee 21:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
True. When it comes to warning others, though, "Watch out - he's a troll" is easier than "A high percentage of his edits exhibit trolling, and this trolling is further reflected in his edit summaries and talk page remarks." Nevertheless, I think that "You're a troll" would violate WP:CIVIL rather than WP:NPA. HKTTalk 22:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
This discussion has been extensive about how to address a user, specifically the use of the term "troll", "vandal", characterization of individual editors, etc. Those were not the issues which brought this discussion into existence. InShaneee's (viewed by some editors) inappropriate blocking, inappropriate administrator behaviour was what brought this "good lad's" actions into discussion. Not the words he used, but the actions he took. To revolve around the words used denies the central issue which was the actions he took and the basis he took those actions on. Terryeo 06:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

While were discussing this, these edits were given before and shortly after Pantherarosa received the final warning tag: edit summary [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] blatant attack [43] and yesturday she made two more personal attacks as shown here: [44] and [45]. Specifically, It cannot be tolerated that a kid playing snitch spreads unproven rumors at his fancy! and I do not wish to have to deal with trolling and bad faith slanderous kids. Pantherarosa has already received countless warnings and I believe has begun using sockpuppets to attack me as well. Could someone please block him/her? Given the edit histories of the suspected sockpuppets, I think it's reasonable to assume that they are Pantherarosa's. Therefore I ask that they be blocked indefinately, and the actions by Pantherarosa factored into the action to be taken. Paul Cyr 21:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Am I having hallucinations or am I really being trolled by (Personal attack removed) making bad faith, slanderous assertions, aimed at smearing my (and others') name?? Would all that be in anybody's interest, i wonder? In case I am not having hallucinations, should this (Personal attack removed) individual be tolerated here, playing all sorts of pranks and wasting everybody's precious time? (Personal attack removed) In case this theorem applies, i wonder how he could be helped, maybe by keeping his access blocked for a while, to to give him time for reflection; perhaps, as a consequence, leading to the possible revelation that he actually does not contribute a thing to this ENCYCLOPAEDIA but merely exhausts editors and admins with futile and bothersome trolling? His contributions log, in any event, is conspicuous with similar actions and I have chosen to observe it on my watch list. Pantherarosa 10:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the personal attacks, the diff is here: [46] Paul Cyr 20:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I was blocked by this user while having a dispute with him, an obvious violation of WP:BP, this user has abused his powers numerous times and is out of hand , he thinks it is ok to call anyone and everyone a troll. I think something should be done about him.--GorillazFan Adam 00:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been waiting over a week for a response! Could admins please take action? Paul Cyr 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

After the edit I had made yesterday on this board InShanee maliscosly blocked me, I find this to be an abuse of admin powers and ask that an honest admin please unblock me.--User:GorillazFanAdam

More bad choices of usernames[edit]

Also, Wikpedia (talk · contribs) has good intentions according to his contribs, but is his username OK?-- The ikiroid  03:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

First two indef-blocked. Looking into Wikipedia. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Let me just drop User:Wikpedia a friendly note, no need to angrily blocked. Actually, in retrospect, probably what I should have done before blocking IEatChildren. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Note dropped. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I eat children, too, but I don't brag about it. ;-) I corrected the username in AmiDaniel's post. -- Kjkolb 07:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Just to let you know the following page is either a false entry or subject of vandalism:

Fixed. Antandrus (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Is -Ril- back?[edit]

Can someone please have a look at the newly-created account -shill- (talk · contribs). I'm about to have lunch now, but the ~~~~ signature in this message makes me suspicious. AnnH 11:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked as sock or imitation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of TfD: Deleted Template:User no notability template.[edit]

Some admin deleted this template without closing the TfD debate going on about it. The TfD had a majority voting for keep, with one "Kill with Fire". Isn't 6/1 basically consensus, and if it isnt, doesn't non-consesnsus default to Keep? If possible, please undelete Template:User_no_notability or at least get me the code so I can put it back on my userpage. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It got T1-ed. - Mailer Diablo 15:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It doesn't really fit the criteria, and why didn't they try to post something on the ongong TfD? -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 21:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just another FYI[edit]

Is this name kosher?

Don't see why not. The fact it's an email address means it's very unlikely that anyone will mistake him/her for a Wikipedia admin. Suspect this user won't have many useful contributions to make though. The Land 14:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Openland (talk · contribs) has created about 4 or 5 new accounts.-- The ikiroid  13:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell us what they are? The Land 14:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
See the logs. --Cyde↔Weys 14:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User: Stupidkit[edit]

Stupidkit (talk · contribs · count) This user is proposing the deletion of random notable articles for reasons of their chosing. Some of these are because they dislike the character. Yanksox 15:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Banned. --Golbez 15:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Good. Stupidity-only account. Bishonen | talk 15:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC).

Frater FiatLux[edit]

I'm having trouble getting the Golden Dawn tradition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page unprotected. We have reached a semi-consensus and Frater_FiatLux (talk · contribs) is misunderstanding the situation. I have also filed a complaint of his violation of Incivility at Wikipedia:Civility_noticeboard#Frater_FiatLux. Can anyone please explaine to me how to get this article unprotected? Zos 17:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This infra user “Zos”, has harassed and beleaguered all my comments to the talk area discussion and has taken it upon himself to frequently misrepresent out of context every posting I have made. I want to place my own compliant about this unscrupulous user, can someone send me details please.

The reason for this: “Zos”, is in cahoots with user “JMAX555”, that has instigated this most recent disputation due to performing defamatory and libellous edits on the Golden Dawn article. To which I have rightfully contested and made a stand against.

I reiterate that this user “Zos”, wants me to be removed from the board as I am the only person rivalling his crusade to deform the present, and rightfully protected article, in to “JMAX555” libellous version. The motives of both these wikipedia users is that they’re both part of the same order, that has a vested interest in propagating anti HOGD/A+O, propaganda and distorting the facts.

I have submitted an array of evidence such as public domain court affidavits from the original source with comprehensive explanations on why the present un tampered version of the article is the correct, verifiable, and most neutral. Please see the discussion page for the Golden Dawn article in question, where I have fully validated all of my comments comprehensively.

Furthermore, this user “Zos” has in an unprincipled manner made an advertisement on the discussion page to announce and invite people to join in, to attempt to kick me off the discussion forum for the Golden Dawn article. The reason being “Zos” and “JMAX555” have no answers to my postings and are simply seeking now in a last attempt at trying to silence me. Solely so that they can carry onto try and approve a defamatory version of the article

I have adhered with recitude to Wikipedia's protocols fully throughout.

Frater FiatLux 17:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

My take on this is that as soon as the article is unprotected, the edit war will begin again. Jkelly 18:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear J Kelly:

Well to make a first step: If JMAX555 would agree not to make unannounced, clearly libellous and defamatory changes to the HOGD/A+O article entry, then I would be happy. Furthermore, I wouldn’t instigate any editing war if this were to be agreed. But JMAX555 has changed the HOGD/A+O article entry in a defamatory tone, when he is no part of that organisation and a leader of the opposition that is currently in litigation. This is why I have protested. If he stops and leaves the HOGD/A+O entry alone, as it has nothing to do with him, other than change it in an biased unprincipled manner; then that would be a start for me.

Frater FiatLux 18:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

JKelly: I agree. If Fiat Lux would care to make his "first step" proposal to the Discussion section, I will respond. - JMax555 19:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear fellow Users, this is a section of a reply that I made to "JMAX555" on the Golden Dawn article talk page. I include it here as it address "JMAX555" supra comment.

You'll have to wait for my offer, as I will have to find the relevant page, or method in which to submit it, and furthermore, I‘m not on the Internet, permanently, twenty-four hours a day either. I‘ll submit the compromise in due course, very shortly, when I know where and who to make it to. I do not feel this is unreasonable, so there’s no value in being disingenuous towards me taking time to make my submition of the compromise. I can assure the mediator that I will definitely be producing this compromise very shortly.

In the meanwhile, I feel, all messages should be suspended to the GD article talk page, and no more past disputation pages should be pasted to the present disputation, as it will only confuse matters. The mediator will need time to go through the information on this page, it is only now fair to the mediator to leave further pointless disputing and actually put all efforts into compromise and sorting this out with the mediator directly. I will find out exactly who and where to serve my "first step" as you put it.

Frater FiatLux 01:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


This user is going through and mass-prodding/AFDing articles for having no inbound wikilinks or (in his opinion) for having been tagged for cleanup for too long. It's highly disruptive, and the vast majority of these pages seem to be useful and perfectly viable pages that (big surprise) just need to be cleaned up and expanded. The whole mess feels like a WP:POINT violation, and I'm mentioning it here in the hope that someone with more authority than me can call time out and figure out a better course of action. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A glance at his contributions show that his 'mass-prodding' seems to be mainly articles by Edbon3000, who periodically creates dozens of articles at a time about the Filipino film industry which have no verification whatsoever and have frequently been deleted. He has never deigned to communicate with editors despite entreaties on his talk page. The one article I remember him creating that was actually on a notable and verifiable person, Rogelio De La Rosa, was actually inaccurate from start to finish and had to be completely rewritten (by me, in fact). See User:Proto/actors for more on this.
Nominating Edbon's articles for deletion is not only not WP:POINT but probably the best course of action. Has he prodded any articles, Steak, that you can find reliable sources for? --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The first one that caught my eye was Manning Island (Australian gov't source on article page), but here are a few others: Luis Rodriguez Varela(books), Jacobo Fijman(books), and Leiner Health Products(coverage of one recent deal, huge accident at one of their plants, 23rd-largest private company in Los Angeles, $600M in annual revenue, top American manufacturer of nutritional supplements as of 1997, top US manufacturer of nutritional herbs, etc.). There are probably others (in fairness, there are some real clunkers, too, and all the Filipino stuff looks more reasonable now that I know the context). We're interacting in a civil fashion on his talk page, so this might resolve itself without fisticuffs or explosions. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Category: XX of Oz[edit]

Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but User:Conradege is adding a lot of categories about the television programme Oz. Old categories about the show had been deleted, they are currently up for deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Oz categories . Maybe someone could have a look? Inner Earth 17:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So far he hasn't added back any categories that were previously deleted. He's separating out the characters on the show by position (guard, prisoner, and visitor) rather than by gang. I don't think this qualifies as an incident. --Cyde↔Weys 17:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:[edit] (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has made numerous personal attacks on me as well as User:Abu badali, such as here, here, here, and here (as well as other edits in the users contributions). This seems to stem from the fact that I have removed images from articles (that this user may have uploaded as User:Padgett22, User:Onlyslighted, and/or User:Steph11 ... I am not sure how to report/check sockpuppets, though User:Meegs seems to think Padget22 and Onlyslighted are one in the same) that are either unsourced or images that are not being used in fair use (most particularly when the image is from a DVD cover and is being used illustrate the person, not the creative property). Also, last evening/this morning, he vandlised my user page. While these actions do not deter my Wikipedia resolve in anyway, I felt that it might be best to bring this up here and let the possible appropriate people look into these actions. Thanks. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 18:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. Previous (and possibly) relevant ANI discussions can be found here and here as they deal with the same actions and possibly the same user.
Yikes, this user's edits almost consistently consist of personal attacks and a very hostile manner. I would recommend an immediate block. Cowman109Talk 20:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

IP Block Request[edit]

As outlined on their talk page (, this user has a history of malicious edits. His most recent vandalisms have been to remove the entire Slipknot and Fallout Boy articles to be replaced with "this band really sucks" and "hi". Personal feelings about those bands aside, he has contributed nothing of value and seems to exist solely to delete the work of others.

Thankyou; however this sort of thing should preferably go on WP:AIAV. The Land 21:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

whatever Platypus it is this time...[edit]

Could you check the doings of Special:Contributions/Duck-billed_platypus, because I just realized that the one had moved a bunch of articles to non-NC-conforming names just after I moved them to NC-directed places. I have a suspicion that this is a sleeper account... Marrtel 20:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good catch, I blocked indefinitely for not making any useful contributions. Ashibaka tock 20:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems with User:MONGO[edit]

Over on Talk:7 World Trade Center, User:MONGO has been personally attacking me, calling me an "idiot," and threatening to block me based solely on my viewpoint. See, for example, [47]. I feel he has all but forbidden me from editing that page at all, declaring any advancement of alternate viewpoints on the collapse of 7 WTC to be "policy violations" and trying to determine the outcome of a content dispute by threatening to use his admin powers. See, e.g., [48].

I'm fed up with his behavior. I don't want to file an RfC at this time, but I'd appreciate it if someone would have a talk with him. --Hyperbole 07:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

uh, yeah, there's really no point in this, if you knew anything about MONGO's past you'd realize 2 things:
one) as an admin he threatens personal violence against people he doesn't like a lot less than he used to, and I happen to prefer the milder, less-likely-to-threaten-to-track-you-down-and-send-you-to-prison-for-disagreeing-with-him-on-the-internet MONGO, a kinder, gentler MONGO if you will,
and two) you're not telling people something they don't already know, if you'll take a quick look at his RFA for instance, you'll see that most of the support was based on the fact that he is incredibly and openly partasain, as well as openly hostile, heck, half the support votes were from people who have been long since banned for open trolling, so if you think something's actually changed since then to errode that kind of support, you're quite mistaken-- 11:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
He'd be blocking you for violating WP:NPOV and being a disruption, not for your views. Please find a more productive way to contribute. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 07:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I never called you an idiot.--MONGO 07:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I told you what I believed, and you said that anyone with those beliefs was an idiot. Let's not split hairs. --Hyperbole 07:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
That is a matter of perception.--MONGO 07:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
You are complaining about my comments, yet I even seriously offered to nominate you for adminship since you think I am so unfit. The offer still stands of course.--MONGO 07:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't want adminship; I don't have that level of experience yet. What I want is civil discussion and the respect every contributor to Wikipedia should be due. You seem determined not to provide that. --Hyperbole 07:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It's like this you see...ask once, the answer is "no". Ask twice, the answer is "NO". Ask a third time and the answer is "NO!" The fourth time and it becomes "Are you hard of hearing? NO way!" Of course there is a fifth and it becomes, "NO WAY! NEVER! Stop asking!" Eventually the response (after incessant badgering about the same old tired nonsense)..."You must be an idiot!"...see WP:V and WP:RS--MONGO 07:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

MONGO ignoring desicions made at ANI: [49]

MONGO "inquiring" about my true identity: [50]

Can someone de-admin MONGO, he is really not a productive force. --Striver 10:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree and have seen many instances where MONGO is productive. -- Samir धर्म 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Mongo seems to be a good and civil editor and admin on non-9/11 related articles. However, on anything 9/11 he becomes obnoxious. (This one is actually quite funny, but I think he ment to be insulting) Seabhcán 11:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't deadmin him as he is a capable and I am sure well-intentioned editor. Some of his work on the national Parks articles is worthwhile. He has erred though in his attitude towards certain users on the 9/11 related articles and should refrain from editing them for a period (a month or two?) to help him get a sense of perspective.
I find comments like:
  • "That's not a POV..that's a mission statement."
  • "That is a bunch of crap"
  • "I am also about ready to start blocking folks for disruption of the talk pages."
  • "In my opinion, we are arguing with trolls mostly"
  • "I will not assume any good faith when POV pushers try to add nonsense to the articles" (all collated on very disturbing. WP:AGF is not to be employed just when you feel like it, it is an absolute rule.

I also find his reply to Hyperbole above ('Eventually the response (after incessant badgering about the same old tired nonsense)..."You must be an idiot!" ') deeply disturbing. As someone who threatens blocks quite frequently for perceived breaches of wiki policy, and as an admin, he should know that WP:NPA is not just for when you feel like it, it is for all the time.

Take some time out, work on other parts of Wikipedia, and you may rediscover that Wiki can be fun. At the moment you are spoiling it for yourself and for others because of the misguided "mission statement" you have taken on. Nobody can own any part of Wikipedia and you may need to rediscover that too. --Guinnog 13:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for perspective, he blocked me once for this comment:

Not if you are working in the Homeland Security and happen to be named User:MONGO [51]

I find the above enumerated statments as much more severe than the one MONGO blocked me for. Do we have a double standard? I cant use sarkasm, but MONGO can call people "idiots"? Thats how i fell it is. --Striver 13:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the objection to Mongo is that he is enforcing the rules: Cite reliable sources; No undue weight; No original research; No link spam. These persistent efforts to lard the 9/11 articles with junk science and conspiracist nonsense have long since passed the point of being disruptive. Tom Harrison Talk 13:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Tom, and fully support MONGO here. NoSeptember talk 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
If this is his aim, he can try to do it without insults. Seabhcán 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, insults...something you seem to relish yourself in edit summaries...[52], [53], [54], [55], replacing insults made by a troll in discussion pages [56], moving the article that you can't force your wide-eyed nonsense into off to your own userspace solely to create your POV version[57].--MONGO 16:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Which bits of those comments offended you, Mongo? I didn't call you an 'idiot' or a 'fool' as you did me, I said (with a touch of scarcasism), that you were a 'philosopher'. Also, your removal of that IP users comments was uncalled for. He was making a comment and you removed it four times and then protected the talk page. There was nothing trollish about his comment. However, your censorship of the talk page certainly bordered on trolling. Seabhcán 18:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Yup. Start following wikipedia policies yourself (WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL) and you will find that people will take you much more seriously when you try and enforce them on others. --Guinnog 13:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The 9/11 articles are akin to the problems we have with our biographies...they are under attack by POV pushers of nonsense such as yourself and this nonsense puts Wikipedias reputation for reliable witness and neutrality at risk. There is no good faith to be assumed when editors such as yourself fight for adding junk science to article space...3,000 people died that day and it directly impacted the lives of at least 100,000 more whose had lost their loved ones and you realize how many potential lawsuits I and others may have saved Wikipedia from if those articles are filled with insultingly inaccurate junk science that claims that the U.S. Government or others blew up the buildings or that they sanctioned the attacks to justify a war in Iraq? Tis a pity so many seem to wish to use Wikipedia resources to push such a horrible bunch of lies into our articles. Yes, I should be blocking others for disruption much more often...block all time wasting trolls.--MONGO 16:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
That's just the reason that People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report was deleted. MONGO is simply enforcing the rules, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and many other Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is a not a free-for-all. If you want to post stuff on the web, without these rules, a Blog would be suitable. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree entirely. (As he has done many times before) MONGO is clearly doing a very good job in ensuring that this article is well referenced and includes neutral facts. He has done nothing inappropriate whatoever. However, admins are always held to high standards in their behaviour, and I do suggest that MONGO drop the tone just a notch. Really no reason to call any group of people idiots for any reason. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
And I disagree entirely, except with your last point. There is no call for abuse; I have never treated this user with anything other than courtesy, in spite of being called (just above) a "POV pusher of nonsense" and a "time wasting troll", among other things. In spite of all these deeply inappropriate behaviours, Mongo, I do still believe you are acting in good faith. But I think a wee rest from this "mission" you have set yourself will do you, the rest of us, and even the articles we are debating, immense good. I am ready to receive your apology for the insults whenever you are ready to give it, and until then, I see no benefit in any continued discussion of your behaviour, either here or on any other page. Sincere best wishes until then --Guinnog 18:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason to rest...whatever do you mean? I owe you something...what is that exactly...I should apologize to you when your efforts are to add nonsense to our articles, thereby putting Wikipedia's reputation at is you that should go elsewhere, and I recommend as others have perhaps a blog will do. I offer no apology and I offer no respite and intend to insult you and others that intend to insult and compromise the integrity of these articles with your nonsense.--MONGO 18:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tom, MONGO is fully justified in his actions. --rogerd 21:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Many of the 9/11 articles are under siege by people promoting conspiracy theories who have little regard for the standards that the Wikipedia should maintain. There's been months of edit-warring over the insertion that Larry Silverstein conspired with government and non-government entities to destroy 7 World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 by a controlled-demolition. How many times does one have to delete that before one calls the inserter an time wasting troll? It is a provocation. patsw 03:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Right, the POV pushing on that page (and others) is relentless. Mongo has been tireless resisting attempts by a very small handful of editors to sidestep editorial rules. They have us going round and round in circles making us repeat the same valid objections time after some point they need to stop. I'm sure they'd love Mongo to step away from that page but it's to all our benefit that he hasn't. Rx StrangeLove 03:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a waste of time. This user just seems to be angry at Mongo responsibly using his admin powers to stop his continous violations of NPOV and refusal to accept the community's consensus. Should Mongo be more careful about his tone, yes, but is he doing what any other responsible admin would do, clearly yes. This is, in my opinion, a violation of WP:POINT. The purpose is to create this, get users who agree with 9/11 truth to post in it and smear Mongo, with the purpose of stoping him from doing his responsiblities as an admin.--Jersey Devil 04:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

By 'this user', do you mean Hyperbole, Seabhcán, Striver or me? I assure you the only point I am trying to make is that User:MONGO needs to "be more careful about his tone", as you put it, bigstyle. Nobody that I have seen on the WTC7 page has tried to sidestep editorial rules, other than arguably Mongo himself when he threatened to "start blocking folks for disruption of the talk pages" in (presumably) an effort to stifle the normal debate on content which typifies Wikipedia talk pages. As a good-faith editor who has always sought compromise and consensus in my dealings with him, I strongly object to being called names or threatened. A gentle reminder to the user about WP:CIVIL may be all that is needed, though, looking at the uncompromising stance he seems to be taking in some of his replies above, this optimism may be misplaced. --Guinnog 10:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
What is there to compromise about? In other words, you want to cite as evidence information gleemed from unreliable websites and books that are not scientific. What compromise is there to be had...policy clearly disallows this.--MONGO 10:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I just picked up the following: "Sure...I guess if the poll demonstrated that an overwhelming number of person did not think there was a conspiracy, you wouldn't even be bothering to link it...who do you think you're fooling?--MONGO 19:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)"[58]. I had hoped that this user had improved his conduct; this reply (and to be honest, some of the ones above), make that belief harder to sustain. Clear breach of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, again. Could somebody 'have a word' with him, please, so that everyone involved can get on with trying to improve the article? Thanks in advance --Guinnog 04:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll have a word with him.--MONGO 05:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review needs unprotection[edit]

Please see the appropriate talk page. Censorship of wikipedia's opponents does three things:

  • Make us look like a cult
  • Make us look like we support censorship of pov's that we dont like
  • make it difficult to read an npov view of them.

So can an admin please de-salt the earth there. Cheers. THE KING 19:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not gonna happen. Most, if not all, admins will agree that this article should not be restored. Just try asking a few. User: 19:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "censoring" "Wikipedia's opponents" and everything to do with established notability guidelines. We have articles on world rulers and great scientific inventions. We don't have articles on random forum communities with a few dozen members. --Cyde↔Weys 19:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. WP:WEB is clear on this. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 19:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I am a proud member of wikipedia. What makes me proudest about it however, is that all major points of view are taken into account. Thats why we can say that we work towards NPOV. I don't want to have to stop saying that. This is not a threat, just something for you to think about. Also, considering the obviously sensitive nature of this request, i propose that we put it to a vote, since i think we can all agree that it's something that the admins would have a bias against. Thankyou in advance for your neutrality in dealing with this matter. THE KING 19:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
You seem to think this is a POV issue when it is not. POV only even comes into play once an issue is notable enough to warrant an article in an encyclopedia of general knowledge. You can try putting up our notability criteria for a vote of increased leniency, but I don't think you'll get very far. --Cyde↔Weys 19:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
POV is a phenomonen that affects not only individual articles but the encyclopedia as a whole, in my opinion. What do you think? THE KING 19:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) I think The King is correct to suggest that someone may oppose recreation of this article in view of the ill regard in which they hold the website (I imagine, though, that they act in good faith, believing our having an article apropos of WR to be deleterious vis-à-vis encyclopedic purposes), but, irrespective of motivation, those opposing de-salting and recreation are altogether correct with respect to WP:NOT and WP:NN (scilicet, WP:WEB); the site has an Alexa rank of 71,164 (though the rank appears to be increasing, and surely I'd be amenable to our reopening the discussion should the site reach, say, 30,000) and is not otherwise notable (mentions under Criticisms of Wikipedia, about the encyclopedic nature of which I'm not certain, would be fine, I suppose). As encyclopedists, we must be disinterested, and we oughtn't to permit our affiliation with Wikipedia to affect our editing: for the same reasons that an article about Phil Sandifer should be (and likely will be) deleted, viz., that, were we not eminently familiar with the subject in view of our association with Wikipedia, we'd think the subject non-notable, so too oughtn't we to have a Wikipedia Review article. Joe 19:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think User:THE KING may have a point. Perhaps this article should be recreated. It would be the perfect place to document incidents such as Daniel Brandt's blackmailing of Katefan0 to leave the wiki and the Phil Sandifer incident. Both incidents were precipitated by the atmosphere encouraged on that forum. I've always said they would be their own undoing. This would be the perfect opportunity to assist them in that endeavour.

But perhaps this all would be too self-referential. -- Malber (talkcontribs) 20:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It should redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. Redirects are cheap. And fun.  Grue  20:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with redirect is that a person can quickly create a article to replace the redirect. The wikipedia review caused alot of damage already. No way I support an article on them. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirects can be protected too, you know. And by the way, do you think Hurricane Katrina should be deleted, because it dealt a lot of damage ;)  Grue  20:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Refusing to support an article because you consider it notable... for having done significant damage. Novel concept. 'Wikipedia, where all the articles are about nice people.' :] --CBDunkerson 22:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the notion of creating a protected redirect as suggested is a reasonable one. We have plenty of redirects that handle topics that do not rise to the notability level required for their own articles; in fact there is an entire class of them via the tag {{R to list entry}}. There is the risk of attracting via this redirect POV-pushing and vandalism to the Criticism of Wikipedia article, but that is nothing unique or new. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This debate belongs on WP:DRV. Where everyone with any sense will say "Legitimate AFD, validly closed, no new evidence presented, keep deleted". Has something changed since we deleted the article? Have any decent broadsheets recently given it significant and wide-ranging coverage? Have any respected academics studied the social consequences of Wikipedia Review? No? *monocle* --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of racism[edit]

User:Gemini531 is accusing me of racism here and here, stating that I am being "racial" (sic) and states that I "hate black people", which is untrue. She is claiming that I am refusing her permission to note that people on Wikipedia are African American. This is blatantly false, see here and here. I believe Gemini531 is making a personal attack on my character. In my opinion, it is probably not a good idea for me to even warn this user, but I would like someone to block or at least significantly warn this person. I do not like being accused of racism. --Yamla 22:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've warned the user. Tom Harrison Talk 23:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Her remark here definitely crossed the line into unacceptably uncivil discourse. I don't think we should take any further action besides the warning but this is something to keep an eye out for. Giovanni33 08:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Irredentist and inflammatory user pages[edit]

Please see User:Makedonas, User:Asteraki, User:Macedonia and User:Makedonia. I have asked them to bring their user pages in line with the policy at WP:USER. If they do not do so within a day I shall be removing the offending content. I can't see a problem with this, can anyone else? - FrancisTyers 23:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading again, perhaps I could have made that slightly less aggressive :) Basically, these pages are way out of line, and I'd like to make sure that I'm not mis-interpreting policy before I implement it. Thanks - FrancisTyers 23:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
A great deal of the text on User:Macedonia's page is almost certainly a copyvio. Jkelly 23:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
We are here to write an encyclopedia - not carry on ethnic disputes by proxy. Totally inappropriate userspace use - deal with it as neccessary - but it all has to go. --Doc ask? 23:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
FrancisTyers, you are in the right. Their user pages aren't in good faith and just cause bad-blood among editors. Just make sure you gave them enough warning before you dealt with it yourself. --dcabrilo 00:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added User:Vergina and User:Makedonec to the merry band. - FrancisTyers 00:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree on this and thanks. Just give them a little more time, to do it themselves (a day is too-short a notice, check the frequency of their contribs). We've tolerated such content for too long now, not to give some more days to those guys to understand their error and correct themselves. Agree?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
A day is much longer than I was going to give them. I see User:Makedonia has already started to attempt to bring his page in line. As for the others, I understand User:Makedonas has been conscripted, well I'm not going to wait around for the Greek army. How long would you suggest we leave it? Also you should realise that deletion is not a terminal affair, their pages can be restored if they agree to bring them in line. - FrancisTyers 11:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree too. Wikipedia is not a soapbox ought to apply to user space as well as article space. --ajn (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. --Guinnog 11:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You have a point about reverting anytime, I was just trying to prevent irrational reactions that would make things worse, when they come back and see their pages blanked. As for User:Makedonas, his page used to be much milder, and I am sure he'll get in-line. People (ha! especially hot-blooded Greeks and Slavomacedonians) tend to over-react when they consider they've been victimised by what they interpret as use of excessive force. So, how about a week?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 12:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that would help to be honest. I mean, giving them four more days, or six more days is not going to help if they don't come online. I mean, if they don't come online before the time is up they are just as likely to "go postal" when they do. Do you have any way of contacting them? - FrancisTyers 14:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok. No problem, I thought of something: When the time expires, I blank the Greeks and FlavrSavr blanks the Slavomacedonians. We also give them a nice message. Just say when is that, if FlavrSavr agrees too.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
An excellent idea. :) - FrancisTyers 14:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Great. Four things though: 1.Who, 2.When (tomorrow noon [or 9:00 UTC] I'll be available), 3.FlavrSavr agrees (he is not online)?, 4.Hold the automatic/semi-automatic/manual-counter-vandal horses. Ok?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the discussion to my talk page. - FrancisTyers 15:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Bormalagurski to remove some similar stuff from his userpage (the "interesting articles" section). I hope he does this voluntarily. --ajn (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The Ass Vandal[edit]

There's a lot more where that came from. We have a new vandal.-- The ikiroid  03:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

HappyCamper and I tag-teamed a couple, but I think we got 'em all. Bring on the rest! AmiDaniel (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I don;t know if "tag-team" is the right word in this situation if you know what I means.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
We don't have an article for Praties... :| Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I think they're all gone. What a weird person.-- The ikiroid  13:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You know you people really need to stop naming these vandals-- 15:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm i think i agree. I checked all the contributions, and it turns out that none of these editors has yet made a contribution... but they are vandals? Maybe you could say user with superflous username or something like that but yes i hesitate to call it vandalism until something has actually been vandalised. THE KING 17:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering where those creamy steamed berries in jars came from. -- Kjkolb 02:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism from previously blocked IP address[edit]

This previously blocked publically used IP address has resumed vandalizing pages. See here. Flibirigit 19:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism notices belong on WP:AIV. Essjay (TalkConnect) 03:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Doom127 block or warning request[edit]

I'd like to report that User:Doom127 has repeatedly re-added content to the Wii article that myself and several other regular Wii article editors feel is POV. Further, when I posted a comment on his talk page explaining the reasoning for not including the content: User_talk:Doom127, he not only deleted it, but labeled his reason for deleting my comments as vandalism. Upon reverting this change and posting a warning about deleting legitimate comments, he re-deleted my original and new comments, as well as the warning templates. Danny 00:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

One word- bull crap. This VANDAL not only has blanked out legitimate AND SOURCED additions to the Wii article, he has repeatedly attacked me, harassed me, on my talk page (which I, in my legitimate capacity, have removed, as all his contributions to it have been harassing personal attacks and vandalism), and he's brought in meatpuppets to the talk page in order to "agree" with him. He's put comments down there such as "You are only here to attack the Wii!", called my legitimate and sourced additions "vandalism", blanked out sections of the page (which IS vandalism), and now he comes here to waste your time. Anyone who's checked my edit history knows that POV is quite important to me- I've never "attacked" neither the Wii, nor the PS3 or whatever. I recommend THAT user recieve a block- I don't deserve the treatment that him and his meatpuppets have given me, given the fact that I've spent a significant amount of time improving numerous Nintendo related articles with the attempt to keep out POV. --Tinyducksig.jpg Daniel Davis 01:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This only further proves that something is strange about this user's behavior. Other users agreed with me on their own, I in no way rallied them or am faking a consensus as he has implied. This user cannot accept that several users besides me disagreed with his basis for adding certain content. Check my contributions and you will see I have never intentionally vandalized an article, so calling me a vandal for the umpteenth time is in fact a violation of policy as I understand it. Please note per his talk page history that I originally left one comment about the reason for removing the one section he re-added and did not add warnings until after he removed my comment. He has once again removed those legitimate warnings from his talk page. And the wording of his comments has made it appear he wants to add a criticism section to the Wii page for the sole reason of doing so, not to enhance its quality. Check Talk:Wii, I am not the only user who thinks so. Danny 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither of you are vandalizing, from your contributions. Stop the flamewar or I'll warn you both. WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. Take a chill pill, or go seek assistance from the WP:MEDCAB. Right now, neither of you can expect action against the other. Jesus. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 01:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I ask in all seriousness, isn't removing legitimate comments from your talk page an act of vandalism? Danny 01:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I respect Avillia and trust his judgement. I accept his findings. --Tinyducksig.jpg Daniel Davis 02:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
That's great and all, except, I would prefer to hear comment on our "behavior" from an actual admin before I consider this matter settled. Accusing someone of vandalism all the while committing seemingly act of vandalism yourself seems pretty serious to me, if I'm wrong I can accept that. But a random user profanely telling me to take a chill pill isn't going to cut it. Danny 05:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Dude, YOU WERE vandalising! You harassed me ON MY TALK PAGE while simultaneously ripping out relevant information from the Wii, information that more than one *respected* (as opposed to Meatpuppet low-edit users) had stated should be in the article. Now Avilla has politely asked you to knock off your behavior, and I agreed that perpetuating the argument on Wii was without merit. But if you're going to keep up this junk, let it be on your own head. --Tinyducksig.jpg Daniel Davis 05:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Avillia may not be an administrator, but given that both of you seem to think that you're trying to improve Wikipedia, and you're having some sort of dispute that has you quarreling on WP:AN/I about who is "vandalising" by making edits the other doesn't like, the suggest to look at mediation doesn't seem amiss. Jkelly 06:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
All I want is for him to leave my talk page alone. Is that too much to ask? --Tinyducksig.jpg Daniel Davis 06:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I originally left one single comment, based on several other user's consensus for his own information regarding the content removal. He accused me personally of being a "vandal" simply for commenting on his talk page. That wasn't right no matter how he wants to twist it. If we really need to take this to mediation, fine, but I still feel his actions were unwarranted and mis-directed toward me as I was not the only user who disagreed with him. In fact, forget it, I'll resolve this now: next time I won't bother keeping him up-to-date. Danny 06:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
How about you commit to letting other users warn Dannybu2001 about any vandalism going forward, and Dannybu2001 commits to letting you blank his complaints about your calling his edits vandalism on your talk? Jkelly 06:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
That sounds very reasonable. Danny 06:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a note -- There is no need to seek "comment on behavior from an actual admin." Wikipedia administrators are not charged with adjudicating disputes between users. There are Wikipedia:dispute resolution procedures for that. Admins are trusted with a few more technical tools than other editors, but they are not judges set over other editors. --FOo 06:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


This user is writing articles like Second floor, Third floor, Fourth floor, etc. These are totally useless entries, and if I could think of a way to tag them for speedy deletion, I would. As it is, someone is going to have to waste time prodding these or taking them through AfD. I'm assuming this is a well-meaning effort, but I'm not the only person to leave him messages about his articles. Help? Erik the Rude 03:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Put them in for AfD if you feel they are not valid articles or need transwickifying, and see what the consensus is. Maybe they can be expanded as User:Hoof38 says, or merged or just deleted. Debate seems the next step. Something unexpected might arise in the course of discussion (or maybe not). Tyrenius 04:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I've left a message suggesting he add any interesting information to the main article, floor. If he agrees we can just quietly delete the articles without the need to go through AfD (that's CSD G7, for you policy wonks). --bainer (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Guess not. He's unprod'ed them all with the note "More than a dicdef" though he hasn't added any content to support it. Fan1967 04:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like mass AfD time. --InShaneee 04:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Erik the Rude has taken care of it: AfD's for Second through Tenth Floors. -- Fan1967 04:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The user has been indefblocked as a sockpuppet of Science3456 (same obsession with pandigital numbers as some of the socks that created all the panigital number pools). I have just denied an unblock request, so I obviously support the block. Kusma (討論) 13:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I was incorrectly called a sockpuppet. My account should be unblocked as soon as possible. 16:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
As Kusma has noted, User:Hoof38's editing patterns mirror almost exactly many of the 100+ accounts in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Science3456. Some examples of those contribs: ex. 1, ex. 2, ex. 3, ex. 4. The sad thing is that this person seems to be able to make positive contributions to Wikipedia, but often decides to absolutely ignore many of the rules here. -Big Smooth 00:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Gzlfb's highly inapporpriate signature[edit]

He has been signing as "G-spot". He hasn't edited since May 28 though. I've left him a message.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Debatable I think, though I haven't read the username guidelines in a while. On a website that has pictures of a vagina just 3 clicks away... =) --mboverload@ 06:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Check out Inappropriate user names:
Inflammatory usernames: Wikipedia does not allow potentially inflammatory or offensive user names. Inflammatory usernames are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia. This includes, but is not limited to: ...
Names that refer to or imply sexual acts or genitalia, including slang, innuendo, and double entendre
It seems from this that G-spot is not an acceptable usage.
Tyrenius 10:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
While I'm not sure where we stand on the issue, and I think it might be best for him/her to change the sig, note that it's not his username, it's his sig. Therefore Wikipedia:User name doesn't really apply. Ral315 (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Connor & User:Pitchka[edit]

Could someone have a little talk with User talk:Pitchka (linking there instead of the userpage, since the userpage is a redirect to Sideshow Cinema, a practice which is of concern itself) about not challenging everyone in an AFD and assuming good faith? I'd do it myself, but I'm already on the hit list for nominating the article. (He's signed as "Dwain" on the AFD). Essjay (TalkConnect) 06:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have left a note on the talk page about good faith and no personal attacks. However, it is a discussion, so I think it would be questionable to try to limit that. However, I have put notes on the AfD page about two of the participants who are new users. I hope this helps. Tyrenius 07:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
You needent remind me it is a discussion; there was a time, before my day was filled with running checkusers and closing RfAs, that I closed hundereds of deletion disucssions each day. While it is a discussion, contributors have the right to express their opinions, and to have those opinions discussed civilly and respectfully. "Who the heck are you to suggest that he isn't?" is neither. Essjay (TalkConnect) 16:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

New rage of Roitr[edit]

Please block sockpuppets User:Nixer. and User:Tutmosis. created by Roitr to impersonate me and user User:Tutmosis. There are some other sockpuppets of Roitr not blocked yet. Newest information you can find here: User:Roitr/sockpuppetry. Maybe we should semi-protect some most vandalized articles.--Nixer 10:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

New rouge admin[edit]

From deletion log:

  • 13:06, 2 June 2006 Doc glasgow deleted "Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard" (fuck off)

Also I find this edit absolutely hilarious: [59]. What a great simplification of the DRV process! LOL jni 13:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand wanting to go out in a blaze of infamy. Syrthiss 13:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hardly infamy - you'll forget it soon. If I'd wanted to be disruptive , I'd have deleted DRV - but I didn't. --Doc ask? 13:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Probably not. :( Syrthiss 13:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Blaze of minor irritation, then? Kirill Lokshin 13:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Doc rash-gow? ;) Syrthiss 13:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
everyone needs a break sometimes.Geni 15:43, 2 June 2006