Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive110

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Ibrahimfaisal userpage[edit]

Speaking of user pages...User:Ibrahimfaisal...it's every bit as much in violation of WP:USER as the last report. Frankly, I think the one provokes the other, in both directions. My feeling is, don't ask, don't tell. All editors ought be brought into compliance. Tony Sidaway is the best example here - he doesn't even have a userpage.Timothy Usher 12:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't really true. I actually have lots of userspace pages, but they're all subpages of the user page, which for convenience points to my hybrid user/talk page at User talk:Tony Sidaway. There is a navigation bar at the top that makes it easy to access the subpages. --Tony Sidaway 13:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I will remove myself from wikipedia if it cannot give me freedom to have such a simple userpage. However, here I want to talk about Dhimmi article only. You can start another section about my user-page. --- Faisal 12:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I've taken a quick look at the user page User:Ibrahimfaisal and I have to say I think it's really well written. It expresses his islam-inspired approach to a number of issues in a way that commands respect, without straying into proselytism. It expresses some disquiet (which I think most of us share) at the lamentable state of the religion-related articles on Wikipedia, specifically those about Islam. --Tony Sidaway 13:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Tony, I'm flummoxed. That's totally absurd. Weren't you just saying that we want editors who will treat subjects neutrally? Also, see WP:USER. To wit: "What can I not have on my user page? Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia...Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia."
Timothy, if there were a double standard in the treatment of religions on Wikipedia, it would work to the advantage of the disfavored religion; readers would see us bending over backwards to accomodate one. Tom Harrison Talk 14:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we do, Tom. Editors which show up and blather on about Jesus saves, accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior etc. are immediately dismissed as spammers, trolls or vandals, even by editors who personally wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment.Timothy Usher 14:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
So, are you saying we are not bending over backwards? Pecher Talk 14:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying that. To the extent that we are going out of our way to avoid offending some sensibilities but not others, the reader sees that and reads more skeptically to accomodate. Tom Harrison Talk 14:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
What's the evidence that the readers are reading more skeptically? And why should they; are you really arguing that NPOV has become a joke? People come to Wikipedia anticipating a factual and neutral account; 99% of readers don't even look at talk pages, and they have no idea of what's actually going on here. We must be fair to all editors regardless of religion, otherwise Wikipedia will indeed become a soapbox or, rather, a pulpit. Pecher Talk 15:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I read more skeptically when I sense political correctness. I hope others do as well, but I guess it is only hope. I agree that we should continue to work toward a presentation that neither favors nor disfavors any religion. I agree that we should not bend over backwards to show respect to one religion while telling followers of another to lighten up. It looks to me like we still have a ways to go. Tom Harrison Talk 15:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The guideline you cite emphasizes that "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants." I don't know anything about Faisal's edits, and if they're non-neutral that is a quite separate matter. The user page, however, is a very respectful and Wikipedian one, emphasizing the tolerance and high moral values that he atttributes to his religion. That is a very good use of a user page. --Tony Sidaway 14:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, okay, I think you need some diffs then. The talk page contributions are essentially continuations of the user page. I never met Jason Gastrich, but it sounds like the same idea. At this point, I've little choice but to post here, but it'll have to be tomorrow.
However, I'm still very confused about how you can take such offense at Chooser's statements, but not this. Are you under the mistaken impression that Islam promotes abortion? Guess again. In any case, neither can be squared with "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia...Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia." I'll say this until I'm blue in the face: the enforcement of established policy is the key to all of these conflicts. It doesn't matter if it's "well-written", or interesting, or in some vague and subjective way "wikipedian" The only thing that matters here is if it has to do with Wikipedia.Timothy Usher 14:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Timothy Usher, one question: you say "I'm still very confused about how you can take such offense at Chooser's statements, but not this". My question: what makes you think any of this is about anyone taking offense at anything? -GTBacchus(talk) 15:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Tony's edit, " Let's wipe this crap off the face of Wikipedia"[1] is a little less than civil, and suggests that he'd taken offense (if not, how much less justified the summary!) I'd be fine with it were it consistent, but since then I've seen a defense of transexual advocacy and now a defense of user page Islamism...go figure.Timothy Usher 15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't suggest offense to me, it suggests that he was appalled that someone was using Wikipedia for hosting a fundraising link. Is User:Ibrahimfaisal hosting a fundraising link? I don't see anything like that on his page. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
GTBacchus, Chooserr has removed the editorial statment, "MAKE ABORTION HISTORY" along with the link. If the former is allowed, someone ought let him know, so that he can restore it toute suite, as I'm sure he'd be inclined to do.Timothy Usher 12:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Does this policy prohibit FairNBalanced's post? Well, yes obviously. That's my point. Just get rid of it all. No userspace preaching, proselytism, polemic, extraneous userboxes, nothing. If it's not about wikipedia, take it elsewhere. That's the solution.Timothy Usher 14:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This report is sooner superfluous and unmerited. The justification for it based upon a false analogy comparison to User:FairNBalanced's previous user page. Netscott 14:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In this case, Tony, may I ask you to read Talk:Islam_and_anti-Semitism#Why_does_this_article_exist.3F and especially Ibrahimfaisal's last comment? Pecher Talk 14:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[copied from Talk:islam and anti-Semitism ]

It's not my view, but that of Ibn Hisham/Ibn Ishaq and the Hadith. All the data comes from devout admirers of Muhammad, who considered his actions and those of his companions - the cold-blooded execution of Jewish POWs, the taking of female Jewish captives as slaves and wives, the sale of Jewish children into slavery, the confiscation of Jewish property and the imposition of serfdom upon its former owners, the murder of Jewish poets, etc. - right, just and glorious.Timothy Usher 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
If that is the case then every Muslim should do what you have said above. I idealize Muhammad (PBUH), and after having above information I will also follow Muhammad (PBUH) Sunnah. Thank you for the information. --- Faisal 13:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[end of copied section]

Instead of reading what Pecher has pasted above read it completely at THIS . Then you can understand my above comments. --- Faisal 14:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tony; I don't see anything wrong with this user's userpage. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify the copied comments above: "Sunnah" means "way"; Ibrahimfaisal is declaring his intention to follow Muhammad's example. Pecher Talk 14:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes Indeed I will try to follow each and every thing that Muhammd(PBUH) sunnah offers me and yes I love him. But I do NOT believe that Muhammad (PBUH) has done those things. That is why there was an IF in the beginning of the sentence. Those comments was sacarcitic to what Timothy had said about my Great prophet, Muhammad (PBUH) is blessing to the whole world. Pecher please do something better than this. --- Faisal 14:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The above is what now passes for a neutral approach to Wikipedia?Timothy Usher 14:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Everybody love something. A person without love is a nothing. You might have love for your country. I do NOT love Pakistan (my country). I love my religion and hence that means I am not acceptable in wikipedia. I do not want to hide my love, why should I hide it? Is it a crime? Oh, I become non-neutral when I say I love Muhammad (PBUH) and Timothy after having above comments (against Muhammad(PBUH)) remain neutral? --- Faisal 14:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Faisal, my comments were first and foremost about Muhammad, a real historical figure, not against him. They are based wholly on the most reliable Islamic sources, Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham, etc. - this idea that we're supposed to compromise between verifiable sources and the sentiments of editors to the talk page is an ongoing misconstrual of policy.Timothy Usher 15:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Timothy, there are many people/authors who have great things to say about Muhammad (PBUH). It is your choice to select some sources and reject others. You have strong feeling against Muhammad (PBUH) as you have expressed above and me in favor of Muhammad (PBUH). However, I think we both could still be neutral. I have to go now. I hope till tomorrow you will be successful in banning me. Good luck. --- Faisal 15:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What are we going to do with the editor who first says "I'm going to kill the Jews just like Muhammad did", and when pressed, switches to the reverse gear by saying "take it easy, folks, I was just kidding"? Are we going to tolerate that? Pecher Talk 17:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious that Faisal's statement was sarcastic. As expressed eloquently on his user page: "I am not biased towards any nation, race, and religion; I try to judge people on individual bases. I assume good faith towards each new person I meet because my religion teaches me that; I will never want to abuse anyone because my religion teaches me that." --Tony Sidaway 17:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Netscott. BhaiSaab talk 18:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Faisal's userpage is perfectly within our guidelines. We don't expect editors to be unbiased, but we do expect them to try to avoid allowing their judgement to be clouded by their personal opinions. I don't know about Faisal's behaviour, but his userpage is perfectly acceptable. Johnleemk | Talk 10:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The relevant policy - which we've apparently all agreed to totally ignore is "Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia." Opinions on Islam, or of any religious or sociopolitical doctrine, are, according to the most straightforward understanding, "unrelated to Wikipedia." I'm still waiting for someone to address this very particular point of policy. If it's not actionable, then let's remove it from WP:USER.
As for behavior, we can discuss this after I've posted with diffs.Timothy Usher 10:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite surprised at Pecher's and TimothyUsher's recent edits here. There seems to be a certain amount of scrabbling for discrediting evidence going on that is most disquieting. On Faisal's part he makes a routine complaint about a content tagging dispute, but does so without incivility. Pecher describes that as "whining about being on the losing side in a content dispute" and TimothyUsher makes an off-the-wall attack on Faisal's user page. This is not a good way to interact with other editors. --Tony Sidaway 10:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Tony, you've clearly no idea what we've been dealing with, and one reason is we haven't provided diffs. It's not an issue of "scrabbling for discrediting evidence", but rather one of processing a mountain of it. If this could wait until tomorrow, that'd be great.Timothy Usher 10:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

guys, as long as we allow expression of personal bias, including religious bent, on userpages, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with Faisal's page. If we disallow expression of religious affiliation, we should do away with userpages altogether. I have no idea what this is doing on WP:AN/I. Is it an "incident" that Faisal on his userpage says he tries to be a good Muslim? I don't see how this is polemical at all. dab () 10:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested to see how people who pillory Muslim editors for expressing their beliefs (remember the shit Joturner had to put up with on his first RFA?) feel about all the users - including admins - who express their Christian beliefs on their user pages. Gastrich was a nut, which is a different matter. Faisal's conduct on the article in question is irrelevant when discussing his user page. His page is fine. Proto||type 11:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I've answered below, but let me say it again: it should all be removed, as per the userpage policy.Timothy Usher 11:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
"as long as we allow expression of personal bias, including religious bent, on userpages" - for starters, we shouldn't, it violates WP:USER as it's written. WP:USER should either be rewritten, or enforced.
  • How does one enforce a guideline like WP:USER? Last I checked the only things truly enforceable were policies. Am I wrong? Netscott 11:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
As stated below, let's treat WP:USER as seriously as we treat other guidelines such as WP:RS.Timothy Usher
Second, I'm not sure who created this section. It wasn't me, as the history will show, and I'm rather upset that my comments have been resectioned to create the impression that I'd meant to file a report against this user for his userpage.
I'd only brought up Faisal's userpage as related to the block of FairNBalanced, then someone else sectioned it off. My point was that the real issue comes down to WP:USER. Either editorial statments on matters unrelated to WP are allowed, or they are not. If there is some nuance here, it's not adequately expressed in policy. For example, write, it's okay to express support for a religion, but not to express opposition. That would be clear enough. I don't think it wikilawyering to ask that written policy bear at least some resemblance to enforcement. If WP:USER is considered unactionable, then I really can't see the basis of FNB's block, particularly in light of the fact that the image was speedy deleted (by me). We can't say, controversial statments are okay, and then block people for making them. Conversely, if controversial statements are not okay, we're kidding ourselves to pretend that promotion of religion - any religion - is not inherently controversial.
I once again refer to the text of the userpage policy, which prohibits "personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia." Are we just going to proceed as if this text means nothing? For the record, once again, I advocate the aggressive removal of all such statements from all userpages as per policy. It would spare us a lot of controversy, such as the perennial userbox nonsense, go a long way towards busting cabals or the appearance of cabals (both of which are harmful), and in cases of instransigence, purge editors who are here for the wrong reasons, as per, wikipedia is not a soapbox. Allowing userpages to be soapboxes sends precisely the wrong message.Timothy Usher 11:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Timothy Usher please do proper research when trying to argue your points. WP:USER is not policy. It is a guideline, there is a rather significant difference. Netscott 11:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

this should be discussed on WP:VP/P, not here. There is lots of WP-unrelated stuff on userpages ("this user drinks beer"??). WP:USER is a guideline attempting to describe what is acceptable and what is not. As all guidelines, and indeed policies, it should be applied with common sense. Invoke it when people begin being disruptive on their userpages. I don't see how it is disruptive when people say "I love my wife and try to be a good Christian/Muslim" on their pages. If you think it is, try debating it in policy fora, not on "Incidents". dab () 11:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

DAB, once again, it was never my intention of reporting this on incidents, and the history will show that I didn't. The original point of contention was that another user had been blocked for editorial statements in userspace, and I'd mentioned this userpage as a counterexample. That's all. What you call "disruptive" is highly interpretive: to a feminist, "I support Sharia" might be considered offensive. To a Palestinian, "I love zionism" might be considered offensive. I'm not saying there are no common-sense rules we can apply here, but frankly, writing the arabic word for "God" on a pig is not offensive to many people, and the choice of whose offense to mind is at best a concession to real-world fears of extra-legal threats - in which case let's say so - and at worst, arbitrary. Besides the copyright violation, which is a real issue, I still fail to see how or that FNB's editorial statement lies outside the policy as it's being represented here.Timothy Usher 11:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Timothy Usher, now you are contradicting yourself. We can see that if you truly believed this last statement you yourself would not have submitted the pig image for speedy deletion. Also you wouldn't have removed the pig image yourself (prior to speedy deletion) nor would you have removed the "Anus Gigantus Assholicus" user box from User:FairNBalanced's user page as it appeared at the time. What gives? Netscott 12:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Pecher was the individual who sectioned off this talk by the way. Netscott 12:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Netscott, I removed these images not only because I found them inappropriate to Wikipedia, but also to protect this naive user from being involuntarily recruited as your whipping post. My goal was not only to protect others from offense, but also to protect him from controversy, because I saw him as a good-faith, potentially valuable contributor, in spite of several missteps. My position on userspace is 1) the policy should beno unrelated material whatsoever, including Allah Pig, I love Islam, I follow Pope Benedict, Make Abortion History, etc. 2) whatever the policy is, it should be explicit and consistent. I'm very sorry if/that you interpret this as hypocrisy.Timothy Usher 12:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Timothy Usher, your mischaracterization of my motives (ie: "whipping post"?) are unfounded as I have previously explained to you on your talk page, I previously counciled User:FairNBalanced to refrain from inflammatory editing that sooner demonstrated a lack of good faith. In response to my last council, he put up the pig image, really stabbing the sword in to the hilt in demonstrating a lack of good faith. Let me remind you that I have been similiarly involved in examples similar to this one relative to both Muslim and non-Muslim editors. Again, you keep referring to policy, there is no policy there are only guidelines. Are you in fact expressing your position on userspace relative to those guidelines? Netscott 13:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
As it seems we're wikilawyering, how about this: let's treat WP:USER as seriously as we treat other guidelines such as WP:RS?Timothy Usher 13:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes I suppose it's logical that guidelines related to actual content might be taken a bit more seriously when the content is what the project is composed of. Hello? Netscott 13:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that FairNBalanced is being treated too harshly, and I am pleased that (apparently) an indefinite block is not in the picture. However, I don't think User:Ibrahimfaisal's userpage presents a comparable situation. It is obviously non-neutral. But is there anything in that page that offends people? Maybe I'm missing something.

My question is this: Are there users with photos just as offensive as the one FairNBalanced posted who are being left alone? To be fair, such offenders should be dealt with.--Mantanmoreland 01:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality was raised by Tony Sidaway when, in his very first comment regarding the FairNBalanced block was, "Seriously I question whether we want to allow Wikipedia to be edited at all by people who are obviously not here to write a neutral point of view encyclopedia."[2]. It's unclear how his approach to this section can be reconciled with that statement.Timothy Usher 01:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I hear you, and I agree the general principle needs to be applied uniformly. Also the user's statement that he will leave Wikipedia if not allowed to express these views on his user page is not encouraging. However, I think there are more egregious examples. User:Ramallite comes to mind, and I am sure there are a lot worse.--Mantanmoreland 01:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:RevolverOcelotX deleting and modifying talk comments at will[edit]

This user has been involved in an edit war over at 2008 Summer Olympics, which is now full-protected, and has carried over his warring into the talk page, where he is attempting to modify and delete my comments at will. First he moved all of my individual responses to a separate area. When I reverted this, he reverted me, then proceeded to unindent something I was quoting, revert me again, claiming that I'm "not allowed to insert comments between other's comments", and finally, DELETED my message pertaining to this from the talk page.

In the meantime, he sent over yet another template my way, threatening to get me blocked for 3RR. Can someone step in? 72.65.68.229 22:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I didn't delete any of your comments on the talk page. I only moved them because you place your comments in between other users's comments. 72.65.68.229 have broken the 3RR on the talk page of 2008 Summer Olympics. --RevolverOcelotX 22:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Really? Where did you move the comment at the bottom of this? The page history? That is vandalism. Your comments pertain to guidelines, not policy; stop trying to force in non-issues to provoke edit warring. 72.65.68.229 22:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Uhm, there's no difference between guidelines and policy except that policy is completely set in stone and takes an act of god to edit - guidelines aren't quite so fussy, but no less enforceable. Shell babelfish 23:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it true to state that I am "not allowed" to reply directly to certain comments, in the very specific context of how the talk page was laid out? 72.65.68.229 23:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I moved your comments to the bottom of section chronologically because you retroactively inserted them in between other user's comment which decreases readability and confuses the reader. But you keep reverting your comments back to in between other user's comments and in the process, you broke the 3RR. --RevolverOcelotX 23:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
User:72.65.68.229, it is true that you're not allowed to start edit wars or edit the talk page as if you "own" the talk page. Doing so is highly disruptive, leads to misattribution, and confuses the other editors. It is also true that you're not allowed to break the 3RR, which you have clearly done so here. --RevolverOcelotX 23:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, yea, don't insert comments in the middle of another user's comments in general. Just respond below it. Makes it a lot easier to read and understand. And if you seriously are going to complain about indentation or moving comments to another place, it will probably be ignored. Get over it. Frankly, there's no point to block over 3RR on such a pointless issue either. Just don't do it again. Edit wars are bad no matter where they are. Sasquatch t|c 23:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Sasquatch, you misunderstand. I was not parsing anyone's comments. Look at the diffs. My comments were in between two comments, not within a comment. He is trying to say that if someone has posted a message below an existing comment, that I can not put a reply to the first comment at anywhere but the very bottom. 72.65.68.229 23:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
No, User:72.65.68.229 clearly placed his comments in between my comments and another user's comments to try to make it appear that he "refuted" them. That is against the talk page guidelines because it is disruptive. User:72.65.68.229 should have placed his comments at the end of the section so it would have been easier to read and respond to, but he keeps reverting back to the disruptive version, and broke the 3RR. User:72.65.68.229's edit wars are highly disruptive and he clearly broke the 3RR and should be blocked as such. --RevolverOcelotX 00:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
No it isn't - he replied underneath each separate post, as is normal. see below.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Then take it to WP:AN3. JDoorjam Talk 00:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I already did reported User:72.65.68.229 at WP:AN3. But it seems the administrators still haven't blocked User:72.65.68.229 yet. --RevolverOcelotX 00:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There were a series of different comments lined up in a row, which were separated by signatures. It appears that User:72.65.68.229 has replied to a whole series, indenting to indicate that he was replying to each question individually. There is not instance where he butted into a person's comment at all. It is more convenient to have the reply indented below the post to which it replies, rather than having them at the bottom in chronological order, as RevolverOcelotX did by moving them. The positioning of the comments was not against the guidelines. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:72.65.68.229 has replyed in between each comment making it difficult to respond to and difficult for other editors to follow. It would be more convenient if User:72.65.68.229 replyed at the end of the section so its easier to respond to and easier to read. Its more appropriate to respond at the end of the section instead of retroactively in the middle of existing comments per talk page guidelines. It would also appear that User:72.65.68.229 has broken the 3RR while reverting. --RevolverOcelotX 03:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It is customary to respond under the individual comment you are responding to, indenting to keep it organized. Revolver, as Blnguyen has pointed out the anon has done nothing wrong with his style of comments, and furthermore, I refer you to WP:BITE-Mask Flag of Alaska.svg 06:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the anon for 3RR (3h), without paying attention to the value or otherwise of the edits. If anyone feels that this is wrong, do please review and correct if necessary William M. Connolley 07:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure User:72.65.68.229 is not a "newcomer" here. He has been revert warring for a while on this and other articles with various other IP ranges. User:72.65.68.229's revert warring is highly disruptive to the article and other editors have complained about this. User:72.65.68.229 keeps insisting on reverting and will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. I feel a block is appropriate for 3RR.--RevolverOcelotX 08:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:72.65.68.229 and User:151.205.36.69 appears to be the IP addesss of TJive and YINever. Here he admitted it. [3] --138.130.126.104 12:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to point out that User:72.65.68.229 and User:151.205.36.69 does appear to be the IP addresses of User:TJive and User:YINever. They both have the same disruptive editing patterns and a WHOIS shows they are from Reston, VA. Perhaps another check user might be in order for suspected sock: User:72.65.68.229, User:151.205.36.69, 141.153.90.177, User:TJive, User:YINever. --RevolverOcelotX 02:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:IronDuke[edit]

Continues to remove Talk page comments from Mike Hawash and removes warnings from his personal Talk page. He does not respect the contributions of anonymous editors and constantly accuses them of being "socks" (without any proof). -- 88.149.150.47 07:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if anyone has any questions on this feel free to ask me or Jayjg, who is taking care of it. IronDuke 16:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Any admin, please answer this: what is the justification, given the edits involved, in Jayg's protections of this page (and others)? IronDuke claims "socks", but provides no proof. Please say what is improper with the edits. -- BlindVenetian 17:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should talk about sockpuppets considering this is your first edit. Newbies don't tend to find WP:ANI straight away and then jump right into talking about admin actions. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 17:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not claiming to be a newbie. I've edited for a long time anonymously. I created an account because Jayg and IronDuke seem to have decided that anon's have no rights. I am simply asking whether any of the edits on the pages that have been protected have been out of order. I think they are edits completely within the range of normal on Wikipedia, and I am being targeted because of a desire to be anon. -- 88.149.148.0 20:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add to this: Jayjg, an admin who edits many of the same pages as User:IronDuke, and with a similar POV, has protected Mike Hawash and several other pages, without explanation, without posting a protection tag on the page, and (perhaps worst), has protected the Talk pages as well, effectively stifling dissent. The edits involved were a real content dispute, not vandalism. I would ask that someone look into this potential abuse of admin power. -- 88.149.150.163 10:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User EM MD continues to blank section after admin warning[edit]

User ER MD continues to blank out the "criticism" section in the American conservatism article even after we had an admin step in and restore the section and recommend better consensus editing. I and others have appealed to ER MD on both his talk page and the article's talk page to join the discussion. He does so only long enough to insult our intelligence, condescend, pseudoflame, and then he blanks the section anyway. I've tried discussing things with him but he generally declines to respond to any logic thrust of my discussion and continues to re-state that the criticism section is POV, we're all dunces for not seeing it his way, and then he blanks the section. It's become frustrating enough that I'm prepared to abandon work on this article entirely. Bjsiders 12:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is continuing to happen. The issue at question is that there is a "Criticism" section in the American conservatism article. A number of editors, both liberal and conservative, have been trying to craft a fair and accurate description of these criticisms. One user, User:ER MD, doesn't want it in there, and after an admin stepped in and said, "it's valid, keep it," he continues to blank it out anyway, or modify it so that instead of being a list of things that critics of conservatism actually believe and say, it's a list of things to laud and recommend conservatism ideology. ER MD's defense is couched in semantics (philosophy vs policy, etc). I've run out of patience with this article and have stopped working on it. I've never run into a more belligerant and uncooperative editor on Wikipedia. There will be no satisfying this guy until the criticism section contains no criticism. Bjsiders 19:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jidan[edit]

A CheckUser revealed User:Jidan has been editing through open proxies. I have indefinity blocked his sockpuppet for this, but am unsure about what to do with User:Jidan himself. Advice requested. —Ruud 23:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If the socks were being used to circumvent policy, I think a couple days block and a stern warning would be in order. --InShaneee 15:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Konob protected[edit]

Konob (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism and has created numerous accounts, Konob2, Konob3 etc. up to Konob14 at the moment, to continue vandalising. He has continued to edit User talk:Konob to document his vandalism and those that block him ("I am going to start adding administrators that banned my accounts ~those ass holes~"), as well as to proclaim his hatred of emos, gays and communists. Rather than let him continue to glorify his own vandalism I have removed all that and fully protected the talk page. If he wants to request unblocking, which he hasn't so far, he can use email. As this does deny him the ability to request unblocking in a public forum, I bring this here for review. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of his talk page and repeated attempts at editing while blocked are certainly grounds for protecting the Talk page. I concur. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrongful block must be stopped - URGENT ! (prior blooper corrected)[edit]

Since this user persists in breaking his block, I've decided to discourage him from that and asked him to take his complaint to the Wikien-L mailing list. --Tony Sidaway 16:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 15:58, 15 June 2006 Tony Sidaway blocked "213.216.199.2 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Used for block evasion. Please take block challenges to Wikien-L mailing list) --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Is this related to persistent edit-warring and POV-pushing at Kven - which has gone on for years? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems so. Thatcher131 17:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

TheWolfstar reincarnated part 235.[edit]

207.210.64.48 (talk · contribs) is making odious comments and more or less suggesting this is our well-loved and always friendly editor Thewolfstar (talk · contribs). Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Another backslashing proxy. [4]. Thatcher131 17:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Are blocked users allowed to just reappear with a sockpuppet and post RfC?[edit]

Just wondering, because apparently User:PatCheng, having had several administrators already review the block and have plenty of opportunity to comment, waited for the relevance of the ANI post on this matter die down in order to create more sockpuppets and post Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Blnguyen. Quite frankly, everything he claims there can be demonstrated to be a lie, but I'm wondering if this is considered an appropriate move for a blocked user. --TJive 16:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I believed too. Can you or another administrator take action on this matter, then? So far it has been left up to Blnguyen to clean up, leading to this user's hysteric claims of impropriety. --TJive 16:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Tony. For what it's worth, I archived the RfC contents, which are basically a short retread of his rant on the mailing list, and can respond point by point on the matter if and when necessary. --TJive 16:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I blocked the sock and deleted the RfC. We're getting a spate of blocked editors openly socking and trying to Wikilawyer. This is never acceptable. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rotating magnetic field[edit]

Can someone checkuser to see if User:Rotating magnetic field is a sock of User:Reddi? If so, arbitration rulings may have been violated. --ScienceApologist 18:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Go over to WP:RFCU. Sasquatch t|c 18:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Help fixing a page move.[edit]

Someone incorrectly moved the article U.S. 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment to U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and I cannot move it back. The Army does not title this unit "3rd", as one would incorrectly expect. The unit is in fact the "3d" cavalry. (Atfyfe 20:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

  • Thanks (Atfyfe 21:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC))
An administrator has moved the article back. -- Kjkolb 21:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Question: Is it possible to remove a comment?[edit]

Hi, another user added an unpleasant comment to my user page and I would like to see it removed. See history of my user page, the one with hell. Is that possible? JKW 22:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am able to change the template on my own, can you please change the comment in the history? JKW 22:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
This can be removed because it's your user page and it's vandalism by someone else, and it will involve deleting and then restoring your user page minus the offending edit. It's not regular practice to do this however except in cases of excessive vandalism (e.g. to the featured article on the main page). -- Francs2000 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, thanks! I just do not like rude comments, since it would have been more polite to leave me a message first. JKW 22:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I need help.[edit]

I am trying to make important additions to Hugh Everett's Many-Worlds Interpretation. I am having a problem with one or two editors who are hostile to Hugh Everret and theory. They revert everything I add. I help obtaining a mediator and mediation. I find Wikipdia procedures arcane and highly esoteric. If you can help me, please email me. Michael D. Wolok 22:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -lethe talk + 01:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Michael, I will try to help also. Can you use your or my talk page?? Thanks --Tom 01:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Legal action threatened re: Esteban Carpio[edit]

See this edit; threat was removed from article and text modified ('convicted' => 'accused') in this edit. 'Threat2' template added to User talk:72.192.39.170 in response. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Claiming that someone has been convicted of murder who hasn't been is usually considered libel under US law. Especially in the midst of their trial. That's an issue for Forestfufighting (talk · contribs), who added that statement, and I would place more blame there than on the person who pointed out the problem. Is there a template for "Please don't make libellous statements"? Checking other edits for that user, he did change Rhode Island's reference to "Vincent Cianci" from "indicted" to "convicted", but that checks out; former mayor Vincent Cianci is now Federal Prisoner #05000-070. --John Nagle 06:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It is definitely fair to go to the original editor and investigate other edits to make sure they are above board, agreed. Regardless of the original editor's activities on-wiki, making legal threats is not to be excused ... or so I thought. I've added the Template:verror2-n to the editor's talk page and reverted another problem edit at Carpio. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Josie the pussy cat yet another Thewolfstar sock, short introduction in 37 volumes[edit]

Josie_the_pussy_cat (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) seems to be yet another bann-evading Thewolfstar sock. Yawn, compare "TheWolfstar reincarnated part 235" above. This because of the cat theme (compare metrocat, etc, etc ), and because of Josie's recommendations to other people of the only two policies TWS knows, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF (in hilarious counterpoint to her own rudeness and suspicion), and because of her posts to users Ed Poor and CorbinSimpson, two people TWS has frequently contacted in other incarnations, and because of her trademark greeting--and, you know, I started writing this up as a Request for CheckUser, but why bother them? For my part I won't block it yet, but suggest giving it a chance to edit responsibly (even though the self-righteous pugnacity of the start isn't very promising). Anyway, what's the point of blocking, when it's far quicker and easier for the user to create a new sock than for admins to block and post sock templates? It would be nice if a few more admins would watch this one, and block and roll back in case of (the usual) escalating aggressiveness. Bishonen | talk 00:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC).

Update: the sock has gone into Thewolfstar mode with a vengeance at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kimchi.sg, and has now been indefinitely blocked. Stand by for volume 38. Bishonen | talk 01:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)..
Yes, ran across this one on my own. Hello. Mackensen (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Mackensen, thanks. Looks like we commented with uncanny timing on Kimchi's RFA. :-) Bishonen | talk 01:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC).
You'll have to excuse me for this one — I thought it was an old girlfriend, XD. - Corbin Be excellent 05:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood socking?[edit]

I'm a bit suspicious about RevolverOcelotX's evident experience with Wikipedia. He looks like somebody's sock. As it happens he seems to share similar interests with Instantnood. And also, he first edited at 0447 UTC on 19 May, just 35 hours after Phil Sandifer blocked Instantnood for two weeks, implementing the two week Wikipedia ban under Instantnood's General Probation. This was a ban that was proposed by me as part of my enforcement of the arbitration remedies on Instantnood.

In his short time at Wikipedia, RevolverOcelotX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has managed to get himself blocked twice, the second time by Blnguyen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). At 0235 UTC today, RevolverOcelotX reinstated an entry on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, an RfC aimed at Blnguyen, that had been inserted by the self-declared block-evading sock of another editor blocked by Blnguyen and removed by me.

I think it's time to throw this open to other administrators. Thoughts? --Tony Sidaway 04:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway, do you have any evidence of this? Many different editors here share similar interests but that does not mean they are sockpuppets. Accusing somebody of sockpuppetry just because of their "evident experience with Wikipedia" is contrary to the policy of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Posting a different RfC aimed at Blnguyen because I question his use of admin powers is completely legitimate. --RevolverOcelotX 04:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that "republishing" material contributed by blocked or banned users is disruptive de facto. So regardless of the sock issues that edit on the RFC page concerns me greatly. Nandesuka 05:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Nandesuka, I did not "republish" material by a blocked user. I posted a different completely legitimate RfC. --RevolverOcelotX 05:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
See this archiving of an ANI post regarding PatCheng. Note ROX's later removal of a comment that he will "will cease from defending him [PatCheng]". Now, after so many PatCheng socks have been blocked, and the mailing list has so far not overturned it, ROX decided to repost effectively the same thing on RfC? Hm. --TJive 05:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
TJive, I only removed that comment because I saw that the administrator Kungfuadam had unblocked PatCheng. And I posted a completely different RfC on Blnguyen. --RevolverOcelotX 05:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
So you admit that your level of defense for PatCheng is contingent upon his ability to edit at any given time. Hm.
You didn't post any RfC that I can see. You simply re-added the link to the already deleted one. And what would it concern if not PatCheng? --TJive 05:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
TJive, that is a complete red herring. I had only removed that comment I made because I had saw that Kungfuadam had unblocked PatCheng and justifyed it by saying "removal of personal attacks does not constitute 3RR".
The RfC that I posted was removed because I did not make a document to link to. It concerned Blnguyen POV abuse of admin powers including unblocking an anonymous IP address who had broke the 3RR. --RevolverOcelotX 06:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Users 220.239.134.188 and 140.159.8.2[edit]

The first user has been rightfully blocked by Kukini for 31 hours for making personal attacks and vandalising articles, but I doubt this will be worthwhile. The user responded to the block with racial slurs and personal attacks.

Of more concern is the second message [140.159.8.2 posted] after the blocked, by 140.159.8.2, repeating similar racial slurs and saying "you can't block me". Note that 140.159.8.2 has now also been rightfully blocked, for vandalism, by AmiDaniel. It's possible, I suppose, that by "you can't block me" he was referring to his own blocking in a confused way. Another theory would be that he is a meat-puppet of 220.239.134.188.

A look at both users' contribs indicates a history of extremely similar edits: vandalism of pages with the word "gay" and repeated personal attacks against other editors, usually using racial slurs. I haven't see one constructive contribution in 220.239.134.188's contribs history, and very few in 140.159.8.2's.

I think it would be worthwhile to consider whether these two accounts, or at least the first, are vandalism-only accounts, one possibly the meat-puppet of the other. 220.239.134.188 in particular does not seem to have anything to offer this project but abuse.

This is the first time I have brought an issue to this noticeboard, so please bear with me if I've left out any important details. Thanks, Kasreyn 09:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

They're both Australian but probably shared by multiple users, so long-term blocks would likely affect other users down the road. Thatcher131 11:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
To add to that - one's an ISP, and the other's an academic site, so it's possible that it's the same person editing from home and college/uni. The problem with blocking academic IP addresses is that often the same physical machine is used by many unconnected people every day (and also that a single person will have easy access to many machines within the same IP range), and the problem with ISPs is that sometimes they reallocate IP addresses (extremely frequently, in the case of AOL). --ajn (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy: Case of multiple 3RR/Sockpuppet/PA abuse[edit]

A recent Request for check user has determined that it is likely that DreamGuy and Victrix are the same person, and shows evidence that each identity has been used by the other to deliberately subvert the 3RR on multiple occasions. DreamGuy has a long prior history of being blocked for abusing the 3RR. --Centauri 02:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment As a curious observer of the situation who has experienced DreamGuy’s behaviour before, I feel that he has stepped up a gear in order to try and provoke another edit war/conflict intentionally. A quick look at his edit summaries will suggest this. However, this time he has been found out for used socks and he has used them to break the 3RR.
A few examples of this are when Dreamguy was in an edit war with Beelzebub and had made three reverts (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), Victrix appeared and reverted reverted the article to Dreamguy's preferred version.
The same applies with Spring Heeled Jack, after Victrix got into an edit war and reverted for the third time revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), DreamGuy came and reverted reverted the article, to Victrix' version.
If you look at their contributions, both use the same aggressive edit summaries, both edit the same style of articles and both are guilty of being extremely uncivil, with edit summaries from DreamGuy such as “what kind of fucked up nonencyclopedic claptrap is that?”[5], similar edit summaries apply with Victrix. DreamGuy has been in trouble for being uncil and breaking 3RR before, however he has often escaped unpunished. Englishrose 09:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It appears DreamGuy hasn't used the DreamGuy account since May 31, meaning it's likely this behavior has stopped (unless another user has stepped in). Seeing that, I'm inclined to ask DreamGuy/Victrix to pick an account, and indef block the other one. Usually users are permitted to use sockpuppets, but DreamGuy/Victrix was using them maliciously, and I see no reason why both should remain unblocked. Ral315 (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, hey, I think you're getting ahead of yourself, Ral315. The scale of likelihood that the CheckUser admins use goes Confirmed-Likely-Possible-Inconclusive-Unrelated. In other words, "likely" is not "confirmed". I also can't find any Victrix instances of the type of language in edit summaries that Englishrose claims is typical of both accounts. Where are the examples of that? Bishonen | talk 18:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC).
Note that checkuser is an aid to determining sockpuppetry but it can be fooled and can also be wrong. Quoting Essjay, "Checkuser, as David Gerard says, is not magic wiki pixie dust, and is never the be-all-end-all of evidence; it's the similarity in edit pattern and interests that confirms sockpuppetry, checkuser just helps confirm or refute what is already known." Thatcher131 18:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I rather more agree with Ral315. Quite a while back I had my run-in with DreamGuy so I can't claim to be totally un-biased on the issue. However, I think the style of contributions from Victrix is very similar to what I saw from DreamGuy, that combined with the 'likely' checkuser result is very suspicious. I'm talking about edit summaries like this one, and in general the long summaries like this and this as pointed about before (many examples). See also the non-checkuser evidence present on the checkuser case page. Therefore I would fully support a block on one of these accounts. Petros471 18:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I too am not unbiased, as I was the recipient of multiple personal attacks and accusations of being a sockpuppet by DreamGuy several months ago, but I would point out that at right about the same time on May 31st, both Victrix and DreamGuy ceased posting for several days [6] [7], and the first action done upon Victrix' return, was the removal of the "odd tag placed there by some unknown vandal." I agree with Petros471 that there is a clear similarity in edit summaries between the two accounts, especially the style of removing warnings from their respective talk pages, in combination with an abusive edit summary which accuses the original poster of harassment. Most Wikipedia editors, in my experience, when faced with vandalism simply use a variation of "rv" or "rvv", without the harassment/vandalism commentary. --Elonka 20:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The evidence does certainly suggest that they are the same person. While many users can be sharp and rather bitchy sometimes (*hold up hand here*) the scale of edit warring and personal attacks by DG is deeply unpleasant to users. A glance at his edits suggests that the clear majority are concerned with edit warring, with abuse attached.[8] I've had my own experience of dealing with him: he posted a merge tag on some articles a long time ago, trying to merge any mention of a topic anywhere else into "his" article. Though not a single person has supported the merge, any removal of the ancient tag leads to chronic abuse. I thought I was the only one receiving it and ignored it, but he really goes overboard in his edit warring. It is bad enough putting up with one DreamGuy edit warring and abusing users. But two of them? Yuch. FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 20:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
<unindenting>If DreamGuy and Victrix are socks, they've been used in violation of WP:3RR policy, and one of the accounts should probably be permablocked. Can we avoid the general piling-on regarding DreamGuy's character, though? His article edits are good ones; they improve the encyclopedia and maintain the integrity of articles which seem to attract every kook, crank, and POV-pusher on the internet. Yeah, he gets cranky. I would too if I tried to maintain a set of articles like that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Cranky? Let's put things in perspective here - DreamGuy is downright abusive - consistently, at length and in the most repugnant manner possible. Many many other editors have been banned for a lot less than he's been allowed to get away with to date. WP:Civil doesn't just apply to some editors - it applies to all - and last time I checked, editing "difficult" articles didn't come with a free pass to abuse anyone with whom one happens to disagree. --Centauri 05:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You keep saying that, Centauri, but don't provide much evidence regarding it. Open up an RFC and provide your evidence; don't drag people through the mud on AN/I with unsubstantiated allegations. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Quite a few people have opened up RFC's against him, have they not? [9][10]. There's no smoke without fire, there have been many complains about DreamGuy being abusive. I myself have encountered his abusive comments during DreamGuy'S tirade against anybody who voted keep on the aladin debate, which included Elonka who suffered much more personal attacks than me. So much so that they had to be refactored. As far as I'm concerned DreamGuy has not and will not change his ways. To be blunt, the only thing that saves him from being blocked is that certain admins seem to want to stick up for him no matter what he's done. Englishrose 15:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. "Certain admins" are probaby just crazy to try to keep around someone who improves the encyclopedia even under constant attack from nutters, trolls, and harrassers. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I was unaware that making good edits to the encyclopedia meant that you could then ignore WP:BITE, WP:AGF, and WP:CIV. Can you look at my contributions and tell me if I can start being abusive with immunity yet? DreamGuy just about made me give up on the entire Wikipedia project because he was being so abusive and unsupportive of absolutely everything that I was doing when I was a newbie (and didn't know how to properly call attention to his behavior). EVula 15:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't refer to the likes of me and Elonka as nutters, trolls, and harrassers. You've got to admit, you do have a history of helping out DreamGuy. It's nearly always the same unimpartial admins (ie Android79 who is on wikibreak, Bunchofgrapes, Bishonen etc) who stick up for him. It amounts to bullying, it's like saying this is our gang and anyone who doesn't like us will be eliminated. As I said, DreamGuy has issued personal attacks to a number of users.I personally think some of the personal attacks DreamGuy makes are quite nutty but maybe you can't see that. Englishrose 16:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Victrix is continuing to remove the sockpuppet warnings from his/her userpage. Is there an admin that could please re-add them? Verification is at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DreamGuy, thanks. --Elonka 10:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The only "nutter, troll and harrasser" here is DreamGuy / Victrix. Methinks that "certain admins" definitely protesteth too much in leaping to his defense at every possible opportunity, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary - particularly as it was "certain admins" who suggested that I bring the matter here in the first place. The fact of the matter is that his edits are of little significance, contribute almost nothing to "improving" Wikipedia, and mostly appear designed to provoke edit wars. That constitutes the definition of serial trolling in most people's book. All of that aside, the purpose of this discussion is to determine what should be done to address the matter of his using sockpuppets to subvert the 3RR - a reality that has now been established to the satisfaction of all (except for "certain admins"). --Centauri 21:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you having trouble remembering my name, Centauri? Or is it just that an even-handed admin approach, such as my both advising you to take it to ANI, AND pointing out that "likely" is not "confirmed", is a complete mystery to you? Bishonen | talk 00:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC).
As far as I can see there are 3 admins who have consistently defended DreamGuy despite his abusive behaviour, so use of the collective term is accurate. What's a mystery to me is how you can continue to defend the indefensible despite a mountain of contrary evidence staring you in the face. --Centauri 02:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that's quite a good point. The majority of DreamGuy's edits are reverts and these reverts do not follow consensus. He removes what he sees fit even if the majority of editors disagree with him. Englishrose 22:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Damn it, are people going to do something constructive, or is everyone who has ever disagreed with DreamGuy going to play to the bleachers non-stop? If you folks have an RFC complaint, then open the RFC. Otherwise, Bunchofgrapes and Bishonen are right: the proper thing is to say that a Checkuser request suggests that it is likely that DreamGuy and Victrix are the same person. We can take it from there on the sockpuppet front, and no one can take anything from the "he was mean to me" front except the people with the complaints. I've not seen Englishrose be thuggish before, but the same cannot be said of Elonka or Centauri, so their allegations aren't winning the day because...well...they just don't have a great deal of ethos for their complaints. That said, let's leave everyone's character alone. If someone wants to announce an RFC and invite input, cool. If folks want to report the Checkuser request, fine. No more, and no more mugging in absentia, please. Geogre 03:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been 2 days since I posted here, and it's clear from the level of discussion that the matter is of serious concern to quite a number of people, but neither of DreamGuy's identities have yet been blocked. When are you intending to do something constructive about that? --Centauri 06:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
You mean that, having determined in your own mind that these are one person, you now feel that you should demand a block, in the absence of process? Wow. I see four people expressing concerns, and two are admins. You've made the matter public, so now you can either go on to process, like an RFC over actions, or not, but stamping your foot won't help anyone's nerves or your cause. Geogre 11:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
There's no call to be flippant. Due process has been followed in bringing a matter of serious concern to wider attention. A serious problem has been identified and thus far nothing has been done to address it. Either deal with it or not, but don't insult those of us who've taken the time and energy to report the problem. --Centauri 13:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Centauri, stay clam and don't raise to the bait. RFC may be a good idea as it will allow you and other users to detail DreamGuy's continued actions more clearly. Englishrose 13:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So... is anything going to be done about this? More importantly, is there anything to be done? I'm not suggesting that he be banned forever (not that I'd oppose that, mind you), but it's been stated that DreamGuy and Victrix are likely to be the same person, and that the accounts have definitely been used to bypass 3RR... and nobody that can do anything about it seems to care. Meh. EVula 22:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Dabljuh[edit]

Dabljuh (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is a extremely disruptive user that has a interesting take on our content policies. He speaks freely of destroying them, and acording to his block log, has been blocked numerous times for edit warring over policy pages and for engaging in conistant personal attacks. This note can be viewed with more clarity by reading his talkpage.

Proceeding the most recent slew of personal attacks, he has been blocked by PinchasC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) [11]

This has been a non stop process of arguing policy, edit wars and disruptive behavior. I'm not paticularly concerned with the sensibility of his policy arguments as its edvident they will bear no changes on the policy pages. This is acceptable. However wikipedia does not condone personal attacks.

As of this post, Dabljuh has decended to the usage of sockkery to circumvent the block with User:80.218.7.176 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Comments..? -ZeroTalk 17:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User also has 217.162.112.251 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) as a sockpuppet as well. I've notified both the puppeteer and the puppets. -ZeroTalk 17:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(Removed comment by blocked user)

IP's involved include
217.162.112.149 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
217.162.112.251 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
80.218.7.176 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
84.73.116.51 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
80.218.7.170 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
217.162.112.233 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
I have blocked them and extended the block for Dabljuh (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) to 1 week. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Further evasions of this block will result in longer blocks. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


(troll comment and personal attack removed)
  • This is unacceptable disruption and block evasion. I have extended Dabljuh's block to a month, and any further evasion of the block for the purpose of disruption should reset or extend that block. --W.marsh 18:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Any comments made on pages other than the respective user talk are to be reverted. This user's difficult demeanor has persuaded me he's an obvious troll with the sole intent of disruption. -ZeroTalk 18:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
(removed troll comment)
By the way, if he will promise to stop evading blocks, that would be a start and I would reduce his block back to a week (he knows how to contact me on IRC, and I can be e-mailed). But further disruption after that week would still warrant blocks. --W.marsh 18:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Anyone know how to deal with ROHA?? --Sunholm(talk) 19:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
(Blocked user comment removed)
Fair enough. Dabljuh, I strongly encourage you to comply with your block and stop evading it with comments like that one. --InShaneee 21:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(Comments by blocked user removed.) JDoorjam Talk 23:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You know well that using sockpuppets or editing while not logged in is prohibited and will cause further bans and extensions of them. You also know quite well that your constant efforts to change wikipedia policies against consensus do not have support (even though you try and redefine 'consensus' and 'support' frequently). Endorse continued ban; user is well warned. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Endorse as well. Matthew is spot on. Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Full disclosure: Jayjg is not a neutral, disinterested party in this matter. He is on the opposite side of an ongoing content debate on circumcision and should therefore recuse himself from this matter. The same applies, of course, to Nandesula. Al 22:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. I'm not involved in any content dispute with Dabljuh on the Circumcision article. Please try to remain factual. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Not that it matters, but your claims are demonstrably false. Even a quick glance at the edit and ban histories reveal that you are a long-time ally of Nandesuka and JakeW. The three of you have a strong pro-circumcision POV, while Dabljuh is known for his strong anti-circumcision POV. In short, you are in opposing factions, which is why a failure to recuse yourself would taint the results. Al 19:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I also endorse a continued block, for anyone keeping score at home. JDoorjam Talk 22:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm more inclined to a ban at this point. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A partial defense of Dabljuh[edit]

I think this entire affair has been unfortunate for everyone involved. I'm not an administrator and haven't had much involvement with Dabljuh outside the confines of Talk:Circumcision, so I'm new to this discussion. Within that talk page, I had already become aware that he was an iconoclast, very outspoken, and as he has described himself above on this page, a "smartass". However, there are a couple points I think should be made. Some editors seem to be of the opinion that Dabljuh cannot be reasoned with and that he should therefore be ignored as incorrigible. I was a bit bothered by this, since I prefer to believe people can always be reasoned with. All you have to do is put yourself in their shoes and understand their frame of reference and their initial premises.

For instance, User:Politician818 began his Wikipedia use as a typical POV-pushing MPOV editor, convinced there was a liberal conspiracy preventing the "truth" from being told about such right-wing luminaries as Ann Coulter and Michael Savage. I believe he got blocked a time or two in there. By extending Politician818 courtesy and sticking up for him on the occasions that he's been correct, I seem to have gotten him to calm down and edit in a more constructive manner. At least he isn't railing about cabals and revert warring as often as he used to. Maybe I'm assuming too much credit for this, but from what I can see, the turning point was about when I talked with him.

With this recent experience in mind, I visited Dabljuh's user page, read up on his interests, and read his Politics subpage, which for some reason which escapes me has now been deleted, despite containing nothing offensive that I could see. So rather than applying a label to him or calling him a name, I posted a polite and careful critique of one of the proposals on his Politics page. What did this incorrigible "troll", who some feel cannot be reasoned with, do in return? He replied with equal civility and thoughtfulness, and conceded the point and abandoned the proposal due in part to the objections I raised.

This does not appear to be the act of a megalomaniacal "troll" who cannot be reasoned with. This is the act of a person who certainly is not obeying Wikipedia policy at this moment, but I feel can be reasoned with. Anyone who's capable of listening to a critique of their ideas and politely responding, recognizing the flaws in their ideas, and conceding a point, can be reasoned with. To me this indicates that Dabljuh should not be driven away from Wikipedia, but instead encouraged to do better. I believe the reason Dabljuh listened to me was because I did not base my comments on a presumption that he is unreasonable. People respond well to being treated with respect; this is the entire point of being civil.

Furthermore, it appears that some of his comments on other topics, such as his vocal opposition to the NOR policy, are being responded to in a way colored by the respondants' opinions of Dabljuh the person. This is not appropriate. I do not agree with Dabljuh's critique of NOR but I will listen to what he has to say about it. Refusing to acknowledge someone's arguments because you feel they're a jerk is called the ad hominem fallacy. Every argument should be dealt with on the face of its own merits. The history of the person making that argument does not enter into the equation unless givens are proposed, in which case trust becomes an issue.

I'm certainly not defending Dabljuh's attempts to evade his block, but if a comment was removed, make sure it's removed for the reason stated. I'm sure there are aspects of this I haven't considered, and there are probably policy violations he's committed which I'm ignorant of. These considerations do not alter my main contention, which is that Dabljuh responds better to engaged debate than he does to being ignored or punished. Thank you for your time. Kasreyn 01:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the original block of Dabljuh lacked any basis and I can very well understand that he feels treated unfair. I suggest both sides apologize and use their time for something more fruitful. Socafan 02:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add my support here. Dab is outspoken and blunt, but he is quite capable of reason when treated reasonably. He is also entirely impatient with blocks that appear to have no basis whatsoever, which is understandable. Of course, he shouldn't be evading the block but I'm not clear why he was blocked in the first place. I realize he speaks out against popular policies, but since when has that ever been justification for a ban? I would think we should want editors to be active and controversial, rather than suppressing all dissent.

My take on Dab is that he's the sort who acts out only when provoked by unreasonable behavior. The solution, then, is not further unreasonable behavior but simply letting him speak. If you remove the block that shouldn't have been set in the first place, there will be nothing to evade, hence nothing to punish him further for. Al 02:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've said on my talk page, evading blocks to disrupt is not acceptable, period. But if he'll promise not to do that, I'll remove my block. So far, he hasn't contacted me. --W.marsh 03:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you really think he will even look at his page after being blocked for a whole month with an original reason of absolutely nothing? Please email him. Socafan 03:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
This might be a case of Ignore all the Rules. The initial block might have been a mistake. It sure seems not only ineffective but counter-effective. Its creating a bigger problem than we started with. If the goal is not submission, obedience but to get him to behave in accordance with the system and rules then we sometimes must be creative and use the right kind of tools to reinforce good behavior. Sometimes sticking to strict punsihments for rebelling, resulting in more rebellings, resulting in greater blocks, just spins negative cycle that only adds to the distruption. I say first the admin who did the block apologize and say he was sorry, he blocking was the wrong solution in this case and ask Dab to forgive him and that if he will be nice so will all the admins. Be extra nice and see if he will be nice in return. Use kindness as a tool. The carrot, not the stick. This approach will probalby work much better with Dab. If it fails, then too bad, back to the classic model. But, this is a good case to experiment given the personalities and the issues.Giovanni33 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I was kind of leaning toward an indef block against Dabljuh for disruption. I am shocked that you are suggesting that I should appologize for blocking a user who makes personal attacks after having a history of being blocked for personal attacks. If he cannot deal with a block for making personal attacks he should have not made them to begin with. He has outused the carrots a long time ago. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I am, shocked that you refuse to apologize for blocking someone without any basis. There was no personal attack in the originally contested statement, and four users already told you so. All you do is to repeat yourself, unsupported with any argument. I find that offensive. Socafan 23:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Its not clear we have exhausted the carrot approach. Dab didn't see his comment as a personal attack and therefore we should assume good faith that didn't intend any such thing. Lets not hold his history against him, lets focus on the incident itself. I think a polite warning should have been tried first before the block, which is excessive. This is, in my view, part of the problem and is feeding a negative cycle. Oppression breeds resistence. He is just rebelling against what he pereceives to be an injustice. This is not wrong. We should back down and start over on a more correct footing. Otherwise we turn a good editor into a real distruptive bad one--even if he was never perfect to begin with. We should not be doing that just for egos. We can admit we are wrong and start over and make Wikipedia happy as that should be our real goal.Giovanni33 04:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't it trouble you that he could make such a comment and fail to see that it is inappropriate? It's not as though he's naive. He's basically said in an RfC on his behaviour that he knows he's incivil and he doesn't care. It's an attitute that is readily seen in his evasion of this block: "my opinion is more important than Wikipedia policy and other editors".
The question is: does Wikipedia care? Do we just tolerate gross incivility, or do we declare that it's unacceptable? Jakew 14:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
PinchasC, I and several editors do not view Dabljuh's comment as a personal attack. Please explain exactly which words or phrases in Dabljuh's comment you consider to be a personal attack. -- DanBlackham 09:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It's debatable as to whether it's a personal attack or simply extremely incivil, but why don't you try wandering into a synagogue and saying "hey, I hear you guys don't want to hear about why your stupid practices should be outlawed"? (That's paraphrased from the comment which I originally reported.) You might want to wrap up warm, because I expect that the air temperature will fall a few degrees. Why? Because it is incredibly insensitive, disrespectful and downright rude. Jakew 14:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a complete distortion of his statement. His statement was a reasonable and thoughtful explanation of why he thinks people may feel offended if the state of their genitals is described in a derogatory way. He used vulgar language, but in no way offensive neither to anyone personal nor to any group. I find your distortion of what he wrote very incivil. Socafan 23:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And if I said pork was delicious, should I be banned for anti-semitism? There will always be topics that certain people are unreasonably sensitive about, but that's no reason to walk on eggshells or to ban people who refuse to. The whole point of Dabljuh's post was to warn a newcomer about how unreasonably sensitive the pro-circ group is, and it's clear that he was correct. Unfortunately, there is still no basis for the original block. Al 19:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing anti-semitic about saying that pork is delicious. Your opinion on the flavour of pork cannot in any way affect other people. Try to find a better example.
As for 'warning people about how unreasonably sensitive' people are, that is itself incivil. You do not, in a civilised discussion about editing an encyclopaedia, 'warn' people about other editors. As a minimum, it's divisive, and - as here - it unfairly misrepresents the editors and the situation. Furthermore, by giving such examples that would clearly violate NPOV, and dismissing objections as bias, it encourages the assumption of bad faith. Jakew 19:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's simply false. It is entirely civil and reasonable to warn people about a pattern of blocks caused by the oversensitivity of others. In a perfect world, there'd be nothing to warn about. Sadly, we do not live in a perfect world. Al 19:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is policy, as is WP:POINT. Dabljuh's blocking was justified on either grounds, and his subsequent block evasion, and insistence that he would only stop evading his block if he was unblocked, only stengthened that. Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
COuld you please elaborate on why his statement in any way violated the policies you cited? Vulgar language alone is no reason for a block. Socafan 23:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't find the diff in question, so for those who are new to the discussion, here it is. If this was a first-time offense, then there should have been a warning, not a block. (If you can't see why lambasting people's beliefs and opinions is incivil and inflammatory...) However, as this appears to have been part of a pattern, and is not an isolated incident, the block is warranted. Johnleemk | Talk 15:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Dabljuh - continued block evasion[edit]

Despite being blocked, and despite this having already been extended for evasion, User:Dabljuh continues to evade his block and edit Wikipedia.

I reverted this edit to Talk:Circumcision, and added a polite note to his user talk page, inviting him to add it once his block expires.

He left the following message on my talk page in response:

There is no provision in policy that allows vandalizations of legitimate contribution to wikipedia. In fact, policy explicitely discourages "kicking someone while down" such as personal attacks directed at blocked users. The rules serve to protect everyone, explicitely including blocked users. You appear to have the "Policy is whatever I like it to be" problem. Please stop removing my comments from Talk:Circumcision. One could assume good faith and say "You simply didn't know". But if you do it again you will be reported for disruption of Wikipedia, which may result in you getting blocked for it.
In addition, despite my explicite wishes you have again posted on my user page. Please abstain from this, it is extremely incivil. 213.113.27.69 11:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Jakew 12:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This editor has decided to willfully and repeatedly edit despite being blocked, and has indicated that he has no intention of stopping. Therefore, it's my personal opinion that it is time for an RFArb on this user, focusing specifically on his unacceptable behavior in evading his block. But I might be a little too close to the situation to evaluate that objectively. Would any uninvolved editors and admins care to weigh in on that issue? Nandesuka 14:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If he's going to ignore blocks this flagrantly, I think it may be a good next step. --InShaneee 15:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:RFArb#Dabljuh. Nandesuka 16:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ais523[edit]

Ais523 (talkcontribs) seems to be a sock puppet of some busybody. I refer to my article start in Jimi Tenor. As a non-English and non-perfect user I have enjoyed the welcome-atmoshpere yet. -- Simplicius 17:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF, please. My only encounter with Simplicius (talk · contribs) before this appears to be this, where I {{db-bio}} tagged a very short article with no notability assertion (this is the use of {{db-bio}}). The tag was later removed by a third user who knew about the notability considerations and replaced with {{importance}}. That user's edit summary was (technically is an A7, yes, but this guy is quite well known. Will replace with an {{importance}} tag.) [12], which to me implies there was nothing wrong with the placing of the A7 tag. --ais523 14:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Simplicius (talk · contribs) gave me no warning about this AN/I, and I have only just noticed it. --ais523 13:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sussexman[edit]

I call Administrators attention to a discussion on the Gregory Lauder Frost Talk Page which is rapidly spiralling out of control.

  • Rubbish. Its what a "Talk" page is for. 86.129.79.148 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. 81.131.58.28 11:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Sussexman has used this talk forum in order to make a series of barely concealed legal threats against me on the grounds that I have made mention of a criminal conviction obtained by the subject Gregory Lauder Frost which in my opinion and the opinion of other administrators is essential to a fairer understanding of the article.

  • I am happy to act as an investigator here. Sussexman has not "legally threatened" anyone. What he has attempted to do is to make clear the legal implications. I cannot see that he personally has said that he is acting for anyone or that he personally is personally "threatening" anyone. 86.129.79.148 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The debate has also spilled over on to other sections of the web and it appears that Mr Lauder Frost himself has intervened: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conservativedemocrats/message/8915?l=1 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conservativedemocrats/message/8973?l=1 http://www.quicktopic.com/16/H/XCG9j5kNnxPaa (Message on this site is a little hard to find, you have to keep flicking through the list so I shall reproduce it here) You don't have to look far on the WWW to discover that these Reds on Wikipedia have smeared a lot of people. We should be complaining about this organisation's Tax-free status to: Internal Revenue Service, Exempt Organizations Determination, P.O.Box 2508, Cincinatti, OH 45201. 60 pence for an airmail letter is a small price to pay in the battle against The Left. Who said communism is dead?

  • This complaint by Chilvers is against Sussexman. Not one of the above quotes which are not from the Wikipedia are by him, or by Lauder-Frost. So what is the point here? 86.129.79.148 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I cannot find Sussexman or GLF making any comments about Wikipedia. This is a smear. 81.131.58.28 11:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sussexman#Regarding_banning

  • What is the relevance of this link? 86.129.79.148 20:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be kind enough to mediate in this matter? User:Edchilvers

It appears (from the article's Talk page that it was suggested by another editor, User:HOTR, that Ed come here in order that he might reference Sussex's legal threats and incivility. SlimV, Fred Bauder, JzG, and other admins seem to be active in editing the article and discussing edits and user conduct on the article's talk page, so I'm inclined to think Ed's concerns might be better directed to them; they are, I think, already intimately familiar with the situation. AFAICT, Sussex has made legal threats (although, in this case, the new off-wiki comments guideline shouldn't apply; he has made on-wiki threats); many on the talk page, though, also seem to think Ed's been inserting material inappropriately (though I disagree), so I think this is a situation best dealt with my those who are well acquainted with the discussion. Joe 18:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In the past hour I have received the following threatening message on my talk page: Good, 81.131. Let's hope that our British compatriot will be held to account for his activities. 86.129.79.148 17:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC) (Under section "Your points answered") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Edchilvers

  • The problem with Chilvers is he came onto Wikipedia as part of his off-Wikipedia campaign (all to evident on Google - just type in Ed Chilvers) and has gone into overdrive smearing people, vandalising articles, etc etc. Hoping for something is not yet a crime or a threat. Or is it? He can give it but he cannot take it. 86.129.79.148 20:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I also feel the need to point out that an outstanding editor,User:Humansdorpie has been hounded to quit Wikipedia altogether after a series of disgraceful legal threats made against him on his talk page by supporters of Mr Lauder Frost: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Humansdorpie#Gregory_Lauder-Frost (See sections 'Gregory lauder Frost') User:Edchilvers

  • I have been on Wikipedia for about six months. I have witnessed more bullying, unnecessary smearing, biased attacks on articles, by politically motivated Users than anything Sussexman or GLF's supporters ever dreamt of. Humansdorpie made his fair share of irrelevant and sneering remarks and got a robust response. If he has drifted off it is of his own accord. One might say don't give it, Mr.Chilvers, if you cannot take it. 86.129.79.148 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, I wish to give my support to Sussexman who, unlike troublemaker Chilvers, has obviously done substantial research on the many good contributions to Wikipedia articles. He has defended Gregory Lauder-Frost's natural civil and human rights out of respect he had for someone he was familiar with and clearly respected some 15 years ago. That is all. 86.129.79.148 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

To repeat what I posted on Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost:
I would like to point out that veiled threats by indirection are in my opinion still threats. I would urge Sussexman and sundry IP contributors to avoid anything along those lines. Further, I would encourage the cessation of personal characterisations of other Wikipedia contributors. Bluntly, it is going to do you no good and will simply serve to weaken your argument among Wikipedians neutral to your conflict, regardless of their appeal to your own factions. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Then I must repeat also what I said on that page:
I hear what you say, but are you saying that anyone who supports GLF should just lie down and take everything that is often very provocatively thrown at them and various other articles on Wikipedia? As for "sundry IP contributors" most people with their funny titles (HOTR, et al) are 100% anonymous to the rest of us and act with impunity. Why does not having a funny name make us second-class citizens here? I am not appealing to any "faction" but to commonsence decency. 86.129.79.148 20:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
To sum up (more detail on that page), my response is that you look better than an opponent if you comport yourself with dignity and do not stoop to their level. While IPs are no more anonymous than usernames, I have trouble distinguishing one from another and prefer addressing people who give me a name to use - my personal preference. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, having seen the venom with which 86.129.79.148 has just attacked myself and anybody who agrees with my line I may as well rest my case

User:Edchilvers

Not venom but simple facts. After all, it is you who came onto Wikipedia with your campaign, prompted deletion nominations for three different biographical articles, and called for smearing materials to be inserted into them. Naturally you inspire anger in all decent men. 86.129.75.212 05:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I too wish to give my fullest support to Sussexman. All he has done is to advise malicious posters that they are breaking UK laws. He has not personally threatened anyone. How could he? You'd think people would be grateful for the advice. But the smearers have an agenda. 81.131.58.28 11:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For values of advise which include offering novel interpretations. Just zis Guy you know? 13:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:71.158.149.97 and Amber Benson and Rick Berman[edit]

I removed some gossip about Amber Benson's personal life, which User:71.158.149.97 reverted see here, and then presumed to 'warn' me about it. Inspection of the "sources" indicated they are not even vaguely reliable. I notice also this user had a week ago posted an unsourced serious libel of Rick Berman here - I've never even heard that rumour before. I'm going to bed - can someone keep an eye on this person. Morwen - Talk 00:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The user User:Cuthbert11, presumably the same person, then proceeded to warn me again that I would be 'blocked' if I reverted again. Since I have no inclination to play games at the moment, and don't take idle threats kindly, I have blocked them for 24 hours. Morwen - Talk 00:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Users who post these kind of libellous statements on Wikipedia without having reliable sources to back themselves up are a dangerous to Wikpedia. The IMDB message boards are not reliable sources when adding such information regarding someone's personal life. Morwen is right to block this user, who should stay blocked in my opinion until they truly understand the concept of reliable sources. If the Seigenthaler incident taught us anything, it should be that we should not post this kind of information about a person unless we can get some truly reliable sources to back us up. jacoplane 01:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any block in their history. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I blocked the user: the IP autoblocker would have got the IP. Morwen - Talk 09:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
B&B are not exactly popular among devoted Star Trek fans ... so it's no particular surprise that stupid vandalism shows up. I occasionally used to hang out on Star Trek message boards and I've never heard anything like that "rumor" ... (it's well known that Lt. Hawk was going to be gay ... but the reason given in the vandalism for not mentioning his sexuality is patently silly) ... probably from a disgruntled fan who wishes Paramount would clean house and get some decent writers and producers in there BigDT 03:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
And certainly we didn't have a source for crap like "on her official message board are immediately removed and denied, as are similar references here on Wikipedia (her entry is continually edited to eliminate such information; see page history for details)." !!! The tv.com page referenced does not appear to be fact-checked, and certainly isn't a source in itself: they get their trivia from user submissions and might check it - but how much? TV.com's credits and 'biography' page are probably more reliable. And I simply can't believe anyone is proposing using "amiiannoying.com" as s source : in this particular case it says "Credit: Julie C", who doesn't appear to even be a regular poster, having submitted only that page as far as I can tell. Who did fact checking?
Bizarrely a new user User:Cheezypoofs has requested I enter into mediation over this issue! Morwen - Talk 09:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
OMG cheezypoofs? That's funny (and totally irrelevant, sorry, Friday File); that's a 'word' used by the botts who spam the yahoo!chess boards trying to get people to pay to watch them on cam, lol.--Anchoress 21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Unethical Behavior and Possible NPA Violations[edit]

On the Laura Ingraham talk page, user Sandover has repeatedly cited a temporary block that I had to serve. This is not relevant to the discussion and is merely being used to fallaciously discredit me [13],

On top of that, and mainly the reason I'm here, I've discovered some underhanded methods on the Keith Olberman talk page[14].

I have addressed this on the Laura Ingraham talk page for full disclosure [15].

I look forward to your input. Haizum 07:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this needs administrative action. I deleted my former statement, and replaced it with this; I realized I needed to be more concise and will bring the specifics up later. There have been numerous AGF, NOR and NPA violations as well as a refusal to listen to fellow editors' input. Karwynn 20:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark: wait for the ArbCom to decide or reblock now?[edit]

Blu Aardvark (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), who is presently unblocked while his ArbCom case is in process, has declared that he no longer wishes to return to Wikipedia and wants ArbCom to drop his case. It seems like he has some newfound animosity towards some editors because of something that was said on IRC, or I dunno why, it doesn't much matter, right? The point is, if Blu Aardvark no longer wishes to move towards becoming a productive editor, the account should go back on the block list. I have made a motion in his ArbCom case, but maybe it should be done sooner rather than later. The ArbCom did ban him from editing any pages other than his talk page and case page, yet he has been demanding apologies from Kelly Martin on her talk page. This seems to me to be a violation of the ArbCom injunction. What do you think? -lethe talk + 11:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Without knowing much about the ins and outs, it seems he was unblocked to participate in the RFArb, and has now expressed a wish to leave Wikipedia altogether. As he is no longer participating in the case, I would imagine that re-blocking his account would be the correct choice. Any possible violation of the injunction is irrelevant. But I would suggest hold off until the ArbComm make a decision. If he starts vandalising, then a reinstatement of the block would, of course, be in order. Proto||type 12:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If he violates the injunction, block him immediately. Otherwise, just leave it up to ArbCom, even if he has left. Better to do it by the book ... because we all know what happened with him the last time when we didn't. --Cyde↔Weys 13:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough then. -lethe talk + 13:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Block message problem[edit]

Some blocks in the block log are set at 'infinite', when it should be indefinite. --Sunholm(talk) 13:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Its always been 'infinite' for indef blocks, as far as I can remember. Syrthiss 13:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
There was misabuse of the word "infinite" for a couple of days in the relevant Mediawiki page. It has since been set back to "indefinite", which is, in fact, what it usually is. -Splash - tk 13:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

{{PAGENAME}}, {{PAGENAMEE}}, and {{PAGENAMEEE}}[edit]

moved to WP:VPT#.7B.7BPAGENAME.7D.7D_.7B.7BPAGENAMEE.7D.7D_and_.7B.7BPAGENAMEEE.7D.7D

--GeorgeMoney T·C 04:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Block User:84.194.99.177 ASAP ?[edit]

This is an anonymous IP used by User:Timburhelgi, User:limowreched, Braekmans, etc... (all the same troll, the author and inventor of High Icelandic) Blanked about 5 pages: talk pages, Wikipedia: Archive pages, etc... See contributions: [16].

This guy has many sockpuppets blocked on the NL and EN wiki, only has HEAVY personal attacks and blanking pages under this IP. Please no patience with this guy. Is there someone in the admin team who can follow this up closely and who I may contact when he returns with a different name... cause his been active for days again now, without any action whatsoever; and he's been promising for months he'll continue "attacking wikipedia"

You might ask admins on the NL-wiki to confirm the history of this guy.

I hope some quick action is taken. Regards --LimoWreck 14:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The IP is blocked for 24 hours now. --HappyCamper 14:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, although I'm afraid this won't be enough (as long as he keeps this +/- dynamic IP). We'll see... --LimoWreck 14:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's talk more about this on your talk page? There are some other things I'd like to follow up with. It's somewhat more complicated than what a typical IP does on Wikipedia. --HappyCamper 14:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've been following this case since a few months when he started making trouble on the NL-wiki; so if you have any question about this guy, feel free to ask --LimoWreck 14:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User: Bradyp continues to blank pages[edit]

Just ran into another page blanked by Bradyp, and from his talk page it's apparent he has a history of doing it to pages. He's hit The Long, Hot Summer several times according to history. Kammat 15:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Okay, looked this over and saw that he indeed has a history of page blanking. I blocked him for 48 hours for now, but I'm at work and don't have time to really look into his activities so somebody else may want to really go over his edits and detemrine whether a stronger action needs to be taken. – ClockworkSoul 15:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • A quick check of his contributions indicate page blanking ([17]) is all he does ([18]). I've permanently blocked him. Proto///type 15:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I must commend you on your quick and thorough action.Sweet Pete 17:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Justice Court[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Justice Court. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Malfunction may cause sock problem/ also will not allow people to remained logged in[edit]

I have had a ongoing malfunction that is causing my sig. to foul up and will also not allow me to remained logged in. I have done everything on my end to try to clear up this malfunction.

The malfunction is this:

I log on as "Martial Law", which is the correct designation, only that this: 66.82.9.69 appears. When this first hit, I have reported it to the techs and other pertainable personnel. Was told that someone may know what is going on. The malfunction is also not allowing me to remain logged in at all. Others have also experienced this malfunction as well. A Tropical storm had just visited FL. Wikipedia servers are in FL. Are any of the servers damaged ? 66.82.9.69 18:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be only local to you, so it wouldn't be a server problem. Have you tried clearing your cookies, especially the ones for Wikipedia? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
My settings were not adjusted correcty. You may have the same functionality decrease.Sweet Pete 18:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I also forgot to adjust my pcb port. You may wish to tryit!Sweet Pete 18:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Mais oui! stalking and blindly reverting[edit]

Right, I don't wish to violate the 3RR, but this is getting rediculous. User:Mais oui! has recently gone around blindly reverting lots of my previous edits, many of which were on pages that the user has never edited before. The edit summaries usually consist of personal attacks and blatant falsehoods such as "restore accuracy". Here is a recent list of these edit stalking revisions, including one of my archived talk page:

Please can this be stopped, it is very childish (assuming this page itself isn't reverted). Owain (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt calling him a "rabid Scottish nationalist" is helping anything. --InShaneee 19:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't you get frustrated if your edits were being stalked and blindly reverted? I have been accused of being a vandal, sockpuppet, persistent abuser, County Watch propagandist, &c. Mais oui! IS a Scottish Nationalist as is clearly evident by continual attempts to remove United Kingdom references from Scottish articles. That is not the issue at hand, it is the edit stalking and blind reverting. Owain (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive89#Block_of_User:MonMan, and the following section. --Mais oui! 19:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
What is that supposed to prove? Owain (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
That you've been shown to use sockpuppets malaciously to win debates. --InShaneee 20:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

David Allen Hulse article[edit]

Recently, the David Allen Hulse article was deleted although I contested it and posted comments. I was working on adding info to his biography when it was deleted! Can this be done? I wasnt notified as to why it was deleted or anything. There wasnt even a vote/survey that I was aware of. Any comments will be appreciated. Zos 20:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The article was deleted by admin User:JDoorjam as a non-notable biography. Please see our criteria at WP:BIO for notability, and our policy at WP:CSD as to what can be speedily deleted. There was nothing in the article which even asserted any notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it did mention that the article's subject was the author of four published books. I would have counted that as an assertion of notability. Jkelly 21:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Only if there were proof that the books had sold over 5000 copies (at least one of them). User:Zoe|(talk) 22:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
You can re-create the article if you can place within it enough information to let us know why he is notable (look at the criteria Zoe posted) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I have pasted the article content into User:SynergeticMaggot/sandbox, in case you didn't keep an offline copy. Jkelly 21:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing this. Not to prolong this or anything, but now I need to cite how many copies he's sold? I feel this is a bit extreme. Just because a few people havent heard of the author, doesnt mean that he is not a worthy source. While I understand why this article was deleted, it does appear that requiring 5000 of his books to be sold merits some bias. He has had 4 books published. WP:BIO is a guideline, not a policy. I feel that this is a wrongful deletion and I quote Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Articles:
  • Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion.
I was getting ready to add to the page, previously stated here, and on the talk page of the article in question, so I do no see why this was deleted so fast.
  • The "Speedy deletion" policy governs limited cases where Wikipedia administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media "on sight" without further debate, as in the cases of patent nonsense or pure vandalism.
This is also not the case. So I feel I can reopen the article, to add more to it, without using the sandbox. My first comment on the talk page was a request for other who have book sources for his bio to please add to it.
I will wait for futher comments. Thanks. Zos 23:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Please only re-add it if he has sold at least 5000 copies of one of his books. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for a policy on this statement. Where does Wikipedia say this on WP:BIO or WP:CSD? Zos 23:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
It used to, that seems to have disappeared. However, it does say Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work . User:Zoe|(talk) 02:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes and its also a guideline, and I do not have to submit to it. So thanks for commenting, but the page will in fact be reinstated unless an actual policy is stated to me. I've already requested that the admin who deleted it comment on the wp:ani page, but alas, he is on wiki-break. I'll continue to add to it in the sandbox until I feel it has enough context. Zos 02:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Um, Zos, please don't be rude about this. I disagreed with the speedy delete, but the article that was deleted was, in fact, completely unreferenced. Refusing to follow Wikipedia guidelines when writing articles will, in fact, lead to their deletion or avoidable disputes. If one of your readers, in this case Zoe, is telling you that they're not absolutely clear that the article belongs in Wikipedia, that should be a clear indication that the article needs work. We are, in fact, trying to write a great encyclopedia here. Jkelly 02:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Continued at User talk:SynergeticMaggot/sandbox -- JDoorjam Talk 02:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)