Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive158

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Use of non-standard templates on guideline pages.

User:Elonka has been adding a nonstandard template to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) which, when viewing the page, looks identical to {{disputedpolicy}}, but is not, most noticably because it does not link the page to Category:Accuracy disputes as the original does. It seems deceptive to make it appear to page viewers that the guideline is in dispute, yet keep it out of the appropriate category as the template is in part meant to do. While there is an active ArbCom hearing on matters discussed on the talk page, there has been no consensus in discussion to declare the guideline in dispute, using a genuine or ad hoc dispute template. (The hearing does not dispute the guideline, only the matter of exceptions to it. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions.) She has done this a minimum of four times. [1] [2] [3] [4]--BlueSquadronRaven 22:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's pretty clear that if a dispute has proceeded all the way to ArbCom accepting a case, that there is, in fact, a dispute.As such, it is appropriate to notate that guideline as being in dispute, and it is disruptive to repeatedly remove the dispute tag. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] --Elonka 22:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The dispute tag itself says that it should only be added by consensus decision.Isn't any unilateral editing of an active guideline disruptive, especially when it becomes a revert war, and especially when that edit is one that says the guideline is disputed (which you have said you believe means the guideline shouldn't be followed)?--Milo H Minderbinder 23:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • To be accurate: the television naming guideline is not disputed by consensus. A subset of the guideline, the implementation of pre-emptive (and thus currently unnecessary) disambiguation in episode article titles-- contrary to the established WP:DAB guideline-- has become a ongoing campaign of a handful of editors, of which Elonka is the principal advocate. Progressively insistent attempts by a small cadre to carve out an exception to Wikipedia-wide standards does not throw a current guideline into "dispute", as Elonka claims above. --LeflymanTalk 01:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is about how to use the guideline. So issues such as moving articles to fit the guideline, whether or not to allow exceptions...etc. The guideline itself is not disputed - no one's asking for the actual guideline to be changed. The entire debate is about how the guideline is applied.

This tends to result in a beautiful circular argument in Elonka's favour. By adding the dispute tag, it causes people to remove it, causing a bit of an edit war on the guideline page. This results in discussion on the talk about whether the guideline is disputed. Elonka then points to the edito war and the discussion and says "oh look, of course there's a dispute." --`/aksha 01:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I will remind everyone at this point that this listing is not about the use of a dispute tag, but of the use of a fake dispute tag. --BlueSquadronRaven 08:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speaking in general, one of the purposes of templates and tags is a form of standardization. It is generally accepted on WP:TFD and WP:RT that if you don't like the way a template looks or is worded, you should edit it (or discuss changes on its talk page) rather than "forking off" a variant template. Such templates tend to end up on TFD, where the outcome is almost invariably to merge it back or delete it. (Radiant) 12:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Proof of WP:SOCK account

If you look at the most recent archive for this page, there was a section on User:BooyakaDell being a sockpuppet of banned/indefblocked user User:JB196. There is a RFC on him, and it was brought up in the RfC that he is adding external information written by JB196 (confirmed in an AFD at [[21]] to articles such as Christopher Daniels [[22]] and Xtreme Pro Wrestling [[23]] (please note the article's talk page where JB196 was the ONLY one to fight for that "Article"'s inclusion. Combined with the prior information in the WP:AN/I it's in the archive here [[24]] Report, it links the account, and confirms that the BooyakaDell account is a WP:SOCK to get around User:JB196's ban. SirFozzie 22:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't prove that I am a "sockpuppet." This is not the first unsubstantiated conclusion that you claim to have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.. Does the Daniels page help your case? Sure, but it doesn't prove it. Does the XPW page help your case? Perhaps slightly, but not nearly as much as the Daniels page considering I was simply reverting a removed link on the XPW page. As far as the Daniels page, what I did was add a reference to an article, and I explained in the Requests for Comment section how I knew who the author was.BooyakaDell 02:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
No, JB (I'm not pretending any more), Only YOU have used that "article" for anything, and you caused a great amount of disruption on the XPW page when you put it on there before (just look at the talk page, admins, if you don't doubt me). There was no reason for you to add that link to any article, unless you are exactly what you are, a sockpuppet account to get around your ban SirFozzie 03:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
As I said in my above edit, "it doesn't prove that I am a 'sockpuppet.'"BooyakaDell 03:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
JB, As I said before, there are only two accounts that referenced "Bleeding Was Only Half the Job" as a PRIMARY source in an article. JB196, and BooyakaDell. It was MIGHTY foolish of you to put that in, when you had a big ol "This account is believed to be a sockpuppet of user:JB196 on your page.If you had come back openly, and promised that you weren't gonna backslide into your old habits, I'm pretty sure they would have lifted the ban. Instead, you tried to sneak in the back door, and go right back to your typical actions. Take your deserved lumps. SirFozzie 03:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
As I have said, I am not the user who was "JB196" and your post while you make good points "doesn't prove that I am a 'sockpuppet'."BooyakaDell 03:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
This has started an edit war on Xtreme Pro Wrestling with the link being removed as not a WP:RS and WP:OR, before the thing spirals out of control, can an admin look in on it? SirFozzie 16:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

More offensive usernames for you to block

Yuser31415 reporting for duty ...

For your blocking pleasure, I have been sifting through the new user log:

  • 06:45, 15 December 2006 Shitty McDouche
  • 06:33, 15 December 2006 Kirbott
  • 06:26, 15 December 2006 Spiritroll
  • 06:20, 15 December 2006 SIEG HEIL! HEIL HITLER! HEIL NATIONALSOZIALISMUS!
  • 06:16, 15 December 2006 Daniel Hitler
  • 06:15, 15 December 2006 Checkusers are Checkuseless when I\'m on an OPEN PROXY! =)
  • 06:14, 15 December 2006 The North Korean Communism Vandal from the Korean Wikipedia
  • 06:05, 15 December 2006 Bullmeister
  • 06:03, 15 December 2006 Give up! A BOT IS BLOCKING YOU! YOU CAN\'T WIN!!
  • 06:01, 15 December 2006 Jimbo Donal von...... HITLER!!!!!!!
  • 05:58, 15 December 2006 Glen S is the King of Mount Asswipe
  • 05:56, 15 December 2006 Glen S? More like Glen ASS. Glen S is a Glen Asshole.
  • 05:35, 15 December 2006 Dibo is a cocksucker
  • 05:34, 15 December 2006 Mount Fuckstick
  • 05:29, 15 December 2006 Anti the bullheaded

(I haven't checked if _all_ of these have been blocked yet.)

Cheers, Yuser31415 07:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just report blatant username violation to WP:AIV, unless there's something controversial or with discussing about them. By the way, what's wrong with Kirbott and Bullmeister? Unless I missed something blazingly obvious... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I will report them in a moment. Bullmeister is okay, but wouldn't Kirbott imply a bot account? Just off to WP:AIV now. Cheers! Yuser31415 07:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't think so personally. It has two ts, for one, and has nothing that really points it to meaning "Bot". Bott alsoseems to be a surname, though it's not even separated in this username. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
That's fine then. Cheers! Yuser31415 07:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Just a heads up: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names is a better place to post stuff like this. EVula // talk // // 16:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Next time, sift through the block log too. Most of these were blocked a minute or less after they were created. Reporting already blocked usernames is a waste of everyone's time, no matter where its done. "I haven't checked if _all_ of these have been blocked yet." - You really should. pschemp | talk 16:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ta-ni-ni (talk · contribs) unblock request

Alkivar indefblocked for repeated improper uploading of images. I think that's silly, if not vindictive. He persists, so I bring it here for more discussion. I say we unblock and teach. Agree? - crz crztalk 08:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you bother to read this users talk page? Repeatedly blanks warning messages off her page. Persisted in uploading copyrighted publicity photos as GFDL-Self or CC-by-SA. There is absolutely ZERO tolerance for repeated copyright violations per jimbo:
We need to deal with such activities with absolute harshness, no mercy, because this kind of plagiarism is 100% at odds with all of our core principles. All admins are invited to block any and all similar users on sight. Be bold. If someone takes you to ArbCom over it, have no fear. We must not tolerate plagiarism in the least. --Jimbo Wales 04:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[25]
There is no need nor intention to be vindictive, but at the same time, we can not tolerate plagiarism. Let me say quite firmly that for me, the legal issues are important, but far far far more important are the moral issues. We want to be able, all of us, to point at Wikipedia and say: we made it ourselves, fair and square.--Jimbo Wales 15:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[26]
This is about as open and shut by the book a block as can be done.  ALKIVAR 08:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Totally uninvoved, that comment seemed a little strongly worded for the question, considering he's not the one doing it and he'd asking before doing something rather then after. 68.39.174.238 08:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Support block, this is clearly someone with no intention but to deceive and breach policy  Glen  08:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Suppported. No reason to allow repeat violators who know what they're doing to continue. – Chacor 08:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good block, the only difficulty for a fair unblock review is that even admins can't see a list of a user's deleted contributions :-( Kusma (討論) 09:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
In cases like this, the upload log still works. [27] - Bobet 11:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse block, we should review it again iff the user gives a categorical undertaking not to repeat the problematic behaviour. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse as well.As I just blocked someone earlier this week for similar activities (who is now unblocked after they promised to mend their ways), no reason to let someone continue uploading images with incorrect tags (malicious or benign).I have no objection though to "teach and then unblock" or "I really really really swear I won't upload an image again until I display an understanding of copyright" (which I am not sure I'm getting from their unblock message). Syrthiss 14:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse block, Alkivar is right on the money here.In many ways, copyright violations are much more dangerous than simple vandalism (which we routinely block indefinitely for).--Cyde Weys 14:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Either all of you are too tough, or I am way too soft. Thanks. - crz crztalk 17:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I think I'm routinely pretty tough, so being soft helps balance me out. /evil Syrthiss 17:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse block as well.Not only has this person uploaded several images (album covers, music video screenshots, promotional photographs) with the comment "I made this myself!", but she has also added {{cc-by-2.5}} tags to unsourced copyright images that other people have uploaded as well.The upload log only serves as a partial indicator of the problems caused. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

AUFORN

I have created a new entry to Wikipedia. The article is "AUFORN" The contents of the article have been deleted by a vandal and instead of the contents, there is a redirection to "Disclosure Project" article. I have put back the contents of the article but feel that it will be deleted again. I have also added a logo (AUFORNLogo.png). I feel that too will be deleted by the vandal. Side note: Before setting up this AUFORN article, I went to an article named "Australian UFOlogy". I added factual information (i.e. prominent ufologist) to the article, but to my dismay, it was deliberately deleted the next day ! The following is the History log on this event:

08:14, 15 December 2006 Lucasbfr (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted 4 edits by 58.106.74.164 (talk) to last revision (94276118) by TimMU using VP2) 

My user ID is Mantom555

Help. thanks.


Mantom555 13:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but this isn't vandalism.Please read WP:OWN; when you create and article you have to expect other editors will come along and change it or possibly question what you've written, especially if you don't have reliable sources.from what I see your original entries to Australian UFOlogy were reverted by an editor who believed they went against wikipedia's guidelines on external links(and I'd have to agree with him particularly in the case of the Amazon links).You changed AUFORN from a redirct to an article, and someone reverted it back to the redirect, which isn't the same as deleting it.Another editor added a tag to the article expressing an opinion that the article doesn't adequately establish the notability of the group and you removed the tag without comment; technically removing the tag could be considered vandalism, though assuming good faith as a new editor you didn't know that.The article is currently listed for a discussion on articles for deletion.I recommend you go there and try to establish how this group is notable and how it can be verified from reliable sources.--Isotope23 14:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Mynameisjimothy

..and sock User:Oie423. Indefblocked them for creating attack page Dan Lifshatz (second block with autoblock switched on). --Ligulem 13:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:22113letitsnow

Umm.. I think 22113letitsnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) might have misunderstood the intention of a "discussion" page.It looks like a group of people are using that account for conducting their very own discussion forum :).

I assume that's not on? Chovain 14:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

<WTGDMan blanked my comments for some reason>- Yeah, that's not Kosher. Go ahead and leave them a warning, Chovain, and I'll keep my eye on it. Their contribs seem to indicate no activity outside of that talk page, so if they don't start doing actual editing after your warning, we'll take it to the next step. A Train take the 14:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed their MySpace-like chat from their Talkpage. I think this may be a sockpuppet of Beccaboo 06 from a month ago. As per policy, Wikipedia is NOT a chatroom. I'm starting to think they were ordered by Taylor Kitsch and/or Steven Strait to vandalize, but now I'm thinking that was a stupid idea to think. I suggest blocking 22113letitsnow indefinitely if they aren't planning on using Wikipedia for constructive edits. --WTGDMan1986 (D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams) 14:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

WTGDMan1986, will you PLEASE! stop blaming vandalism on actors, TV show characters, WWE wrestlers, people you knew in school, etc??It's getting really old and annoying and you've been warned about it in the past.Metros232 14:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been going on for a few weeks ... I can't remember what the last account was where I saw this. I think someone brought it up on the Village Pump. Anyway, same style, same names of the "chatters." | Mr. Darcy talk 15:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Proof that they're playing with Wikipedia: [28] kim: yet again. we get another name thingy. Not really sure how to handle this other than blocking the various accounts for having multiple users under one name (which I've just done User:A Train just did to this one). | Mr. Darcy talk 15:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with the block. IMHO, an account that is so obviously being used for a chat client (i.e. no actual article contributions just talkpage chat) could be indef'd without warning. Make them justify why they should be allowed to keep an account.--Isotope23 15:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there's pretty solid precedent for blocking accounts that have no history of legitimate use. The kids were warned that they needed to started actually editing and they didn't. I'm sure their teachers would thank us. A Train take the 15:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Indef and let them explain if they want to.Considering they are implying they are making a new account I don't see the need for anything other than zero tolerance.I've protected their talk page. Syrthiss 15:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppet

It appears that we may have an abusive sockpuppeteer who's "vote" stacked on several afd's. Because this is an issue of proxy accounts, I have brought this matter to AN/I rather than SSP. It is documented here. The puppetmaster, Rough appears to have used several proxy servers:

A throwaway account:

And one other sock:

The users have a history of similar interests in Roberta Beach Jacobson. These users twice were successful staving off deletion [33], [34], although on both of those, it was deleted anyway, and one admin admitted it was a poor decision to keep it [35]. Rough seems to have a history of not telling all the facts [36], making dubious claims [37], and creating articles about his own company then "voting" in their afd [38] [39]. Because Rough has been with us for a while, we should be very careful with any action taken, but I thought that I should bring this notice here (in fact, User:Rough may himself be a sock of a previous or current user). I'll leave it up to others to decide. -Patstuarttalk|edits 14:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Where are the administrators at Arbcom incident board?

I posted a notice yesterday and have still yet to see an administrator deal with it. Please do so! --ScienceApologist 15:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

IDF barnstar?!

We have a IDF barnstar? Can I create a OBL or Hamas barnstar? Or should the IDF barnstar be deleted? What is the correct course of action? --Striver 07:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The IDF isn't an internationally recognized terrorist organization. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
And you need not create an OBL or Hamas barnstar because you already have the following on your user page:
  • An Islamic sword helping to symbolize Islam, the Religion of Peace. [40]
  • An unabashed image displaying a US serviceman sitting on an Arab as a blanket statement about all Americans. [41]
  • A pentagram hexagram drawn on an American national seal - an obvious "Jewish conspiracy" insinuation. [42]
  • Numerous intolerant, anti-Masonite images and links. [43]
  • Miscellaneous inflammatory links. notably: [44] --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I must admit, your userpage is stepping rather firmly on the line between offensive and acceptable.--Vercalos 07:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Errr....a pentagram has 5 points, not 6. And since when has the pyramid been an American seal? Why is the picture of the serviceman a statement on all Americans? Maybe it's just a statement on those who take photos of themselves sitting on prisoners? The sword is an important symbol of shia islam (it's compared to excalibur in the description page). Anyway, your argument is ad-hominem. We're discussing the IDF barnstar (which I find totally acceptable, by the way. I'm sure there are dozens of US Army inspired barnstars out there), not Striver's userpage. yandman 08:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
My mistake; I completely missed the "Jewish conspiracy" insinuations. Thanks for pointing that out. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Right... we are discussing the IDF barnstar, and you're really jumping to conclusions with quite a few things. For example, the purpose of the hexagram is to show the connection between the letters that spell MASON. Also, I'm sure you're aware of your sardonic use of Religion of Peace. Anyway, in regards to the IDF barnstar, I don't see it as a problem. They're a military defense organization, not a terrorist group that targets certain groups of people. -- tariqabjotu 11:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
That being said... another name would have been better since the Israeli Defense Force doesn't really seem relevant to the barnstar itself (it's not like it's for contributing to articles related to the IDF). -- tariqabjotu 11:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Errr...I'm pretty sure I said the seal was American, not the symbol of the pyramid. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and my 07:08 one-liner was a devestating refutation - the rest is ad-hominem, but only in response to Can I create a OBL or Hamas barnstar?--Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I would certainly support renaming and redisigning the barnstar so that it is less explicitly POV, but to a certain extent that it up to the members of the wikiproject.If you think that it is inflammatory the best course is to nominate it for deletion at WP:MfD rather than creating another problematic one (see WP:POINT).Eluchil404 07:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The barnstar has no likeness to actual IDF logos and there is no Star of David. It is arguably less POV than any barnstar containing a symbol that represents Israel/the Jewish people. What precedent would you like to set? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Based on this discussion and the attacks against Striver, the IDF barnstar is very divisive. -Lapinmies 08:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that premise doesn't make any sense. It's a total non sequitur. This discussion, and "attacks" on Striver have nothing to do with wether a barnstar is acceptable or not. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Lapinmies, I tend to disagree. The majority of the discussion is about how disruptive Striver is. The barnstar itself doesn't seem to be a problem. Doc Tropics 08:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
People are so passionate about that barnstar that they have to start making accusations against Striver because he brought it up. This is why I say it is divisive. -Lapinmies 09:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Who's passionate about it? I think it looks poorly made, but poorly made doesn't mean it's offensive. Striver should just stop calling the kettle black - and stop disrupting for that matter. He hasn't even bothered to participate in this discussion. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The IDF barnstar is a fine way to reward those who are here as soldiers of Israel (as opposed to being here to make Wikipedia into an accurate and balanced encyclopedia). --Zerotalk 08:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of barnstars that are used figuratively. It's not like anti-vandal barnstars are only for people with black surveillance vans and satellite uplinks. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The discussion of the Wikiproject page says that the IDF barnstar was created since most Israelis would recognize the distinctive shoulder bars since Israeli armed forces service is compulsory making it extremely common in Israel. I find nothing offensive about it existing. Despite what the IDF might have done, it is no worse than having US army type awards or userboxes on Wikipedia. If we remove the IDF, we'll be on a slippery slope to removing all presumably militant-themed awards and userboxes. Gdo01 09:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I certainly don't disagree with you on those grounds, I'm just saying that it isn't required to be as literal as Zero is maybe suggesting. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It'd be simpler and more neutral if all project awards were named for their project. This award is being given by WikiProject Israel. Just call it "Israel Barnstar". -Will Beback · · 09:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Having this barnstar apply to any Israel-related contributions, and not specifically to the Israeli military, is absurd, and the barnstar below it advertised as "for Israel's defenders" similarly makes it seem that this WikiProject seeks to advance or protect particular interests, rather than write a neutral encyclopedia. (Would someone contributing to articles about American universities ever be given a "U.S. Army barnstar"? is the "Bagel of Zion" only available if you create articles full of praise?). —Centrxtalk • 09:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, but they might be given a very generic looking mascot barnstar for working on a university project. So I agree with you in the sense that an IDF barnstar for any contribution is absurd, but I don't think an IDF barnstar for general Israeli projects is inappropriate. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The description of the barnstar is "The IDF Barnstar is given to Wikipedians who have made extensive contributions to Israel related articles on Wikipedia." It doesn't mention anything about the military. -Will Beback · · 09:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
And I'm saying it doesn't have to per the aforementioned. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that the only way someone would have a problem with the barnstar is if they didn't like the IDF...Where exactly does the barnstar actually pus POV?All I see is 'exstensive contributions'.I have nothing to do with the project, Israel, or the middle east, so I don't have any problem with the barnstar..It'd be one thing if the barnstar was for something patently offensive, such as the KKK or the Nazi party, but it's the IDF, and the only place the IDF is found to be offensive is by those currently hostile to Israel....--Vercalos 09:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I totally disagree w/ people exchanging IDF barnstars as per Centrex and Zero. As for Striver's userpage, it is another issue which cannot be discussed using ad-hominem arguments. This is supposed to be a neutral encyclopaedia guys! Are you fighting here militarly Haizum to defend Israel? If it is the case than we got a serious problem here. -- Szvest Wikiquote-logo.svg Wiki me up ® 10:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not complicated. I only brought up Striver's userpage when he asked if he could make a UBL or Hamas barnstar. To be even more clear, he wanted to make something offensive - I explained that his user page was already offensive. Just drop it already. As for me, I'm using logic. I don't actively participate in any Israeli projects, I'm not known to, and I don't intend to. So, if you want to point POV fingers, direct them at the guy that has a sword of Islam on his user page. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(to Vercalos) I know a user here who witnessed his friend being killed by the IDF. Would you mind if I created a PLO barnstar? Khoikhoi 10:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain to you why this is an admission of POV. The IDF embraces a moral and peaceful ideal on the official level. Accidents happen, people make mistakes, but the goal of the IDF is peace, not war. Your statement. by virtue of deductive logic, shows that you believe all deaths at the hands of the IDF are wrong/evil/bad and are never by accident or in legitimate defense of Israel. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The very fact that this image now forces us to discuss whether the IDF is "good" or "bad" shows how divisive it is. Fut.Perf. 10:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't legitimize the bias - the morality of the IDF is not up for discussion. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we all try and avoid "The Userbox Wars 2 - The Return" please? yandman 10:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should avoid creating offensive barnstars. Khoikhoi 10:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd be in favour of getting rid of this. The whole old "barnstar of national merit" idea is suspect too - as Wikipedians, we are simply not supposed to act with the motive of promoting the interests of a particular nation. But this one is particularly bad, with its implied reference to "defending" the interests of one particular nation, and to military violence as a means of achieving this. The image clearly alludes to military organisation, and the filename is part of the message too. If this was technically a template and not just an image it would certainly have been speedied under T1 long ago. I'd say that images designed primarily or exclusively for quasi-userbox purposes should fall under the same criteria as userbox templates proper. Fut.Perf. 10:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe just implement the German userbox barnstar solution for this type of barnstar? yandman 10:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why it is so difficult to create a different Barnstar to award for excellent Israeli-related contributions but simply a less contoversial one. Issues aside, this will cause flames. And there is no reason for extra inflammation. --Irpen 11:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC

I feel sorry for people that have such a timid outlook on the world. Controversy does not mean there is something legitimate to controverse; in this case, we're talking about pixels on a screen. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 12:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
We do encourage anyone to contribute to the encyclopaedia and we do have plenty of barnstars as rewards. The point is that Israel-related articles are not limited to the IDF. The IDF (be it bad or good) got a military connotation. There's nothing wrong at all to present Jewish/Islamic/Christian barnstars as they cover thousands of articles but the IDF? -- Szvest Wikiquote-logo.svg Wiki me up ® 11:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Addendum... Israel Defense ForceS are defending Israel on the ground but what are they defending here? -- Szvest Wikiquote-logo.svg Wiki me up ® 11:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

OMG, maybe, just maybe the IDF barnstar is sometimes being used figuratively. OMG, ever consider that? I mean, it's not like editors are literally receiving little metal stars in the mail. WOOOOOOW, that just dawned on me! --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 12:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it. My ancestors slaved in the barnstar factories, and my father was killed by a falling barnstar. I'm offended by their usage. Why can't we just say "Thanks for being a great editor on this project. Three cheers!" instead of using such a sharp, and offensive object such as the barnstar? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 12:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you mean but that doesn't give objective answers to my questions Haizum. -- Szvest Wikiquote-logo.svg Wiki me up ® 12:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Editors that strengthen project Israel articles with reputable and verifiable content, and defend them from vandalism, rogue edits, and unsourced material are IDF barnstar worthy in my opinion. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 12:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok! -- Szvest Wikiquote-logo.svg Wiki me up ® 12:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think its quite funny that you guys are taking this serious, has anyone actually looked at Strivers edit history, this is what he does, start drama. Anyway the idea that the barnstar be given for anything doesn't make sense, but me giving a barnstar for the wrong reason does not delegitimize the barnstar itself. Wouldnt the simple answer be to revise the banstar text instead of deleting since it will just be recreated with the new more acceptable text anyway? Also this whole issue over "defense" meaning defending Jewish ideals is insane considering it most likely means defending articles against vandalism, takes some bad assumption of faith to assume its for ideological reasons. --NuclearZer0 13:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh. You got to the right point. So it is set as a counter-vandalism award! Who are those vandals? Palestinians or wikivandals? Does this barnstar concern non-Israeli fighting against vandalism at Israel-related articles? What is the use of barnstars that are givenw/ restriction? As for Striver's userpage, i personally have concerns about it as well and would argue against many things used on the userpage. I've just blocked a new user 2 days earlier for having anti-Jewish quotes (according to what he explained, they were only quotes stated by others. Ummm!) Again, what i am defending here is keeping this place clean of troubles especially between contributors working on heated articles. -- Szvest Wikiquote-logo.svg Wiki me up ® 13:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
What does this have to do with Palestinians? --NuclearZer0 19:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The IDF barnstar is a stupid and ridiculously POV barnstar, and ought to go (I suggest any admins to speedy the thing right away). And, for that matter, so should all the Muslim barnstars which are distributed as often as a way of saying "thanks for pushing our Muslim POV" rather than "thanks for helping out the Muslim articles". And so should the LGBT barnstar or any other barnstar which is a subtle way of saying, "thanks for the POV pushing". And, finally, Haizum is right, Striver, your userpage is incredibly offensive. You might have a point about a bad barnstar, but this is a case of WP:POT if I ever saw one. -Patstuarttalk|edits 16:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes great and who gets to judge why a barnstar is given, anyone cited as not being given for the right reasons is going to look like a violation of WP:AGF. Why is the barnstar POV again? because you personally think some people are given it for pushnig a POV instead of just contributing to articles. Who cares if its a Isreali article or not, If I give a friend a star of David for a gift for doing something nice for me, does that mean something more then it just being a thank you? It is what it is, just because you can imagine grave circumstances in which its used for a more horrible reason, doesnt mean it actually is.
Patstuart, you could not be on all counts any more correct. All such awards must be deleted, IDF, Muslim, LGBT or otherwise. Who gets to decide? Hmm, who gets to decide everything else? Our standard should be, if any substantial minority of editors thinks it POV, delete. Barnstars are not sufficiently compelling to preserve in the face of controversy.Proabivouac 11:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

--NuclearZer0 19:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

... wow, Striver is even more offensive than I am. Anyway, I think that a barnstar for WikiProject Israel is a good idea. But linking it to the IDF is probably not very smart. I understand that a lot of people support Israel and the IDF as only reacting to terrorism, but I can't see any reason why the barnstar should identify with the IDF or use that kind of styling. As for the assertion that the only people who find the IDF offensive are Israel's enemies, I cannot agree. I personally feel that both sides have stepped over the line far to many times to be taken at face value anymore. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 16:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps linking to IDF is overboard, perhaps the people who use it will accept the keeping fo the style just redirecting of the link. --NuclearZer0 19:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Durova and myself have just left a message at Stiver's talk page urging him to do some GOOD CLEANUP to his userpage.I believe this kind of stuff SHOULD stop so nobody would argue anymore. It's just too silly to hear stuff like ohh, jacko got a puppy, i want one too or he does shit on the floor, why not me?!. I hope there would be no need to follow WP:IAR. I also hope this would help wikipedia. -- Szvest Wikiquote-logo.svg Wiki me up ® 17:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Striver left me a very respectful reply and cleared his userpage.I'd like to add that there appears to be some merit to his complaint even though I would have expressed the thought much differently.Most national merit barnstars are rather bland.I've given one to Yannismarou for several featured articles about Greek history.Since a reference to the IDF does carry POV overtones, how about bringing that barnstar more into line with the norm? DurovaCharge! 20:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Overly controversial, should be edited. Nothing wrong with a barnstar for Israel or IDF articles, but it shouldn't be a military symbol for a controversial military. Consider this - we should certainly have a barnstar for Soviet Union or WWII Germany related edits, but it should not be a Soviet or German military symbol. (desperately trying to avoid Godwin's Law, but darn it, it's the most appropriate comparison). AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course we need a WikiProject Israel barnstar, but i don't understand why it needs to be related to the countries armed forces. And i am not afraid of Godwin's Law. If anyone is interested, i could fix a proposed neutral Israeli barnstar, and im sure the Israeli wikipedians would love it, or at least like it. --Striver 19:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not. The former is perfectly fine, the latter is Nazi. And where is my IDF contributions award? (rhetorical: answer is over here). El_C 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
What military is not controversial ... if you mean controversial as someone doesn't like them. --NuclearZer0 19:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't believe the 300-solider Military of Vanuatu is particularly controversial (at least not since the 1996 VMF coup attempt). El_C 19:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
this is perfectly fine and neutral, a nice barnstar for a real topic, no "you are in the IDF to defend WikiPedia against... <insert>" non-sense.--Striver 19:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Have the people receiving the barnstar been called to serve in Israel? probably not. So what exactly is your point then? --NuclearZer0 19:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This discussion has gone way off point. The topic was not about the IDF Award, but if Striver could make an OBL or Hamas one. The answer, obviously, is no. Further, a quick look at Striver's edit history will show a ridiculous amount of POV edits that push an anti-Semitic, Holocaust denying agenda, particluarly here. In this case, any talk of WP:AGF or the like will just come across to me as so much WP:bullshit. There's no reason that I see to afford Striver anymore stage time than he has already received. Please close this discussion so we can go back to creating an encyclopedia. Jeffpw 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Since we are not affiliated with the IDF, I think we should not use this name. I agree with Elaragirl and I hope we all will agree that there is nothing wrong with defending Israel from POV attacks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The main goal of the Barnstar of National Merit, when I created it, was that it was awarded for articles on nations (not a specific one), since nations usually give out medals for doing deeds for it. This was, hopefully, going to be used instead of nation awards, as what the Wikiprojects were doing. But, the Wikiprojects made their own awards, so I just noded and moved away. As for this specific Barnstar, I would really like for it not only to avoid using the IDF connection, but I would really think we should change the design. I state this because the central emblem of the award is a Wikipedia logo, under a copyright license. I do not think we can make it PD at all, so I would suggest replacing the logo with something else (maybe a puzzle piece). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the Wikipedia logo from the image due to your concerns. I believe it's good now. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 12:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree w/ Humus last comment. I also like the IDF barnstar awarded to el Jefe. So i suggest keeping this barnstar in question solely for IDF-related articles. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 11:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Other than the copyright issues I would be somewhat more worried about Image:Bagel of Zion.jpg which is aparently for "Israel's defenders to remember not to edit on empty stomach" I feel some work on pharaseing may be in order.Geni 11:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am fully responsible for that one (both img & joke). I don't see anything wrong with it, but YMMV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
defending a country is inherently POV.Geni 11:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Be careful with generalizations. Anything can be NPOV if done properly. There is nothing "inherently POV" about defending a certain WP area from from POV attacks, slander and demonization. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the caption to "defenders of NPOV coverage": [45]. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note they are not barnstars but 'Wikiproject Awards', there is a difference between WP:BARN and WP:WPPA. Now whether they have gone through WP:BAP is another issue, but let's try to avoid to much bureaucracy...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam accounts from a few months back not spam accounts?

It was recently brought to my attention that several accounts that were blocked after being reported here for spamming, were merely accounts for students for a professor showing them how to edit Wikipedia. He is requesting that the accounts are unblocked, so I just thought I'd bring this here to see if that sounds alright. Cowman109Talk 21:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the proof that the person you are in communication with is, indeed, a professor?Have they emailed you from a school email address?User:Zoe|(talk) 21:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I've seen some similar cases, including one where clearly a class of students were all creating usernames and articles at a professor's instructions, all of which then had to be tagged and deleted. Apparently that professor's instructions also included ignoring warning messages. Even if this professor is real, it appears that he believes that (a) he is free to use Wikipedia as scratch paper for his class work, and (b) he somehow has the right to dictate policy. IMO he is entitled to demand absolutely nothing. Fan-1967 22:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, I'm ignoring the harsh tone of his note of course; I'm just seeing if people think something should be done, or whether to ask that the students simply create new accounts. Cowman109Talk 22:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The account blocks where the result of clear spamming. Whether the spammers were students or not is beside the point. I don't see where the professor ever explains why they did it or why the accounts should be unblocked. I do note that the tone of the note is uncivil. -Will Beback · · 22:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Cranky, isn't he? Those definitely look like spamming, so I'd say good blocks unless he comes up with a better reasoning than "this was unjust so fix it" (not to mention the impolite comment about Cowman109's username). This professor seems to be quite interested in Wikipedia, judging from the course outline for one of his classes; note the 'paper assignment' involved. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
"A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger". Maybe we could just eat crow and tell the guy we're sorry, it won't happen again, but you'll need to create new accounts, and make abundantly clear on the user page what's going on, and no external linking. But from now on, remember it's a private encyclopedia, and we have every right to ban you own sight for any reason we choose, so please be careful with your tone. Sometimes the humble road is the better one. Patstuarttalk|edits 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Why would we want to say that if it's not true?If they behave in the same manner, the same action will still be performed.User:Zoe|(talk) 22:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, if this is just for practice and educational purposes, he could teach them to link to any site (yahoo.com, for example). Why is it so important for them to be able to add his site to a Wikipedia article? That part sounds a little suspicious. Fan-1967 22:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I've responded to this.Cowman109, you should of course feel free to unblock those accounts if you think that they are likely to make helpful contributions to Wikipedia, but my suspicion is that taking no action here is probably better.Jkelly 22:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I love how somebody called User:Damis is complaining about somebody using a "ridiculous pseudonym".User:Zoe|(talk) 23:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps someone should unblock the student accounts, and then block their professor for incivility. :) Newyorkbrad 23:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I added unsigned2 as he didn't bother to sign his post. I am strongly considering posting a link to NPA on his talk page for his " hidding behind this ridiculous pseudonym" post on Cowman's page. If the individual owners of the accounts wish to be unblocked, they should post {{unblock}} on their pages and be reviewed. I see no reason why we should go out-of-process to satisfy Damis, who cannot even be bothered to be civil. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think someone should point this person to one of the places that you can set up a wiki for free.(wikia.com?) That would likely suit his needs better then a sandbox or some-such. ---J.S(T/C) 00:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
One of his stated course objectives is to understand "the mechanisms and ideas that make this revolution possible".One of those mechanisms for Wikipedia is the ability to block users who violate policiesagainst things like spamming.It might be pointed out to him that when you attempt a "real world" experiment, the results you get are the results you get.His students learned that if a bunch of accounts add the same external link to Wikipedia, you get blocked.It's still data.I'm only being half-snarky here -- he's not being very intellectually rigorous.As J.S notes, if he wants a controlled experiment/experience he should set up his own wiki.If he wants a real world one, he should accept the results. Dina 01:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
May I suggest you post that observation on his talk page, Dina? KillerChihuahua?!? 01:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(Done) 69.4.153.248 02:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I reverted the copying of this ANI report to his talk page with the snide remark at the bottom - there is no reason to inflame matters further - he's already been told that there is an ANI report here and he can be directed to it if there's any question, but if discussions are occurring in multiple different places then things get needlessly difficult. Cowman109Talk 02:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I support your revert, I'm not sure that helped anything.I did take KillerChihuahua's suggestion and post my thoughts on his talk page.I mean, it's not like a class that teaches students "to become Wikipedia editors" is a bad idea -- it's his methods, not his goals that are the issue here.Dina 04:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree with both the revert of the paste-and-comment and Dina's post. I support teaching about Wikipedia; it is a pity the Professor didn't bother to learn anything about the WP:RULES prior to attempting to teach it. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia the Guinea pig (hey, how come there is no article on Guinea pig meaning test subject).Oh, we did this in a class, too, my introduction to Wikipedia.The professor was amazed (and eventually pleased) that all you punk editors reverted our nonsense and deleted our accounts--really fast, too.In fact, that Wikipedia acted like it promised to act was quite surprising, as the professor intended it to be an object in the failure of volunteers and committees to accomplish anything useful.There is no Wikipedia policy saying we should allow ourselves to be Guinea pigs, waste our time as Guinea pigs, or give special privileges to the conductors of experiments--it just shows a lack of respect to the more and more people who every day turn to Wikipedia for real information.So, how about show some respect for users, the people this is being written for?KP Botany 23:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User claiming admin abuse

I was accused of abusing my administrator powers today. Basically, here's what happened: I indef-blocked a user (Mr.POV (talk · contribs)) due to the username policy, which states that usernames with "Wikipedia terms" (the listed examples from the policy page includes "POV") are not considered appropriate. It was a very soft block, so that user can still edit via another username or anonymously; only the Mr.POV account is blocked.

Shortly after, the user posted from his IP on my talkpage: [46]. I gave him a no personal attacks warning after that and removed the messages from my talkpage. Today, he posted [47] accusing me of abusing my admin powers and using my userpage as a "blog" (which is ironic, since I loathe blogs and find them annoying).

Basically, I created this section to invite others' opinions about this matter (ie. Did I do the right thing? Was I simply carrying out Wikipedia policy?); I've also posted on that user's talkpage to invite him to post his two cents. Thank you. -→Buchanan-Hermit/?! 07:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically you were probably within your rights. Nevertheless, you could have probably avoided this turmoil by first pointing out the policy and giving him a chance to plan ahead before the block got slapped on him. Imagine what a surprise it was to him when he was logging in only to find out he'd been blocked. A little forewarning wouldn't have hurt. Even so, you were probably in the right, and he should just dust himself off and move on. Doczilla 08:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, reading username policy will show that you are not 'within your rights'. There is a procedure to follow to avoid just this scenario. Trollderella 08:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, there it is: "Co-operative contributors should normally just be made aware of our policy via a post on their talk page. Voluntary changes (via Wikipedia:Changing username) are preferred: users from other countries and/or age groups may make mistakes about choosing names -- immediate blocking or listing on RfC could scare off new users acting in good faith." and "Where a change must be forced, we first discuss it. This can take place on either (A) the user's talk page, (B) a subpage of the user's talk page, or (C) a sub page of Wikipedia:Requests for comment. It should be listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment in the appropriate section. The user should also be made aware of the discussion." That word "should" in the first sentence might give B-H an out, but yeah, someone with admin power should read every word of something like that before taking action, and then should do as it instructs. Doczilla 08:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I did post a message on his talkpage explaining the block [48]. I also told the user that he/she can sign up for another username (in other words, that the block is restricted to that username only). Although yeah, I admit I should've given him some warning first. However, the result would've been the same. -→Buchanan-Hermit/?! 08:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, from that same username policy page, an argument can also be made for "However, administrators may block inappropriate usernames on sight." (which was what I had in mind). -→Buchanan-Hermit/?! 08:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone choosing such a username clearly knows what they are doing. I see no problem. It's not worth assuming good faith in such blindingly obvious situations. – Chacor 08:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to campaign to change policy on this issue ;) Trollderella 20:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's almost certainly a sockpuppet anyway, looking at the edit history.Move along, now, nothing to see here... Guy (Help!) 09:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, if it is a sockpuppet being used against policy, then that is what the account should be blocked for, but that is a different issue. I don't think that it is too much to ask that administrators follow policy and request the change before blocking. It helps prevent resentment and accusations of high handed abuse, so reducing vandalism. Trollderella 19:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
On User name choice:"Someone choosing such a username clearly knows what they are doing."This statement is absolutely against assume good intentions.I'm not Internet savvy and chose a user name the first time I signed up for an account that was instantly blocked.No explanation, no way to ask why or what was going on, and I could not figure it out--AND I couldn't change my user name because my IP was blocked from signing up for a new user name.Finally I e-mailed some administrator who patiently did whatever was necessary to get me a user name.This attitude that everyone is so Wikipedia savvy that they know all Wikipedia acronyms is 100% against everything Wikipedia should strive for: namely an encyclopedia created by a diverse group of people on all the major topics in the world.If everyone is required to be a computer geek and know everything before they can even join, it will never happen.For one thing, if I spent enough time on the computer to be as familiar with the Internet as necessary to have not made the mistake, I would spend no time in the field getting to know my subject.Oh, the offensive user name that caused all this trouble was simply a common abbreviation in my field that has been adopted for Internet use.It was used my way for about a hundred years before the cyberspace came along--I'm a researcher, but not a researcher into cyberlingo, a little assumption of good faith could go a long way in making Wikipedia open to a much diverser group of people.KP Botany 00:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Misterrick

I just got this email from User:Misterrick (presumably cos I blocked him for 3RR):

...because by blocking me you just opened yourself to a major fucking lawsuit, I'll sue you, Wikipedia and anyone else who interfers with my 1st Amendment right to free speech and I'll also be contacting the Internal Revenue Service and not only will I get Wikipedia's not-for-profit status revoked I'll be giving them your name and the name of anyone else involved in this little farse and I'll have them investigating you so far up your ass you won't know what hit you and if you think I'm kidding try me I am a very politically connected person and I can get shit done that you only dreamed of.

and [49]. Does this constitute "legal threats" and hence an indef block? Advice sought... William M. Connolley 11:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This calls for an indefinite ban.People invoking the first amendment really need to understand that Wikipedia is not Congress.Morwen - Talk 11:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
100% yes. If you havent blocked, him, allow me. ViridaeTalk 11:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks William M. Connolley 11:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. ViridaeTalk 11:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I have just put a final warning on the IP's talkpage for vandalism to User:William M. Connolley. You should be able to get peace. Next time, report it to WP:AIV
So, he seems now to be leaving random abusive messages from a variety of IPs.These don't seem to be in the same range - are they proxies? Morwen - Talk 12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Proxies? I don't need no stinkin' Proxies, I probably have more computer savvy then you'll have, Why don't Y'all just give up you can't win. User:Misterrick68.162.1.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I'm going to get some sleep now but don't you worry now I'll definitely be back and we can pick on your (tee hee) blocking. User:Misterrick 68.162.12.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

68.162.1.222 came from a3-0-0-1714.dsl-rtr3.nwrk.verizon-gni.net., Jersey City, New Jersey running a fire wall.--Hu12 12:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Cool, maybe he will sue us in a court of law in Trenton, New Jersey ;) Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 13:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I have put a warning on 68.162's talkpage about vandalizing WMC's Userpage and Talkpage. It would be better to report it to WP:AIV if Chase Collins from The Covenant-like behavior continues, as to what I saw you do to MisterRick this morning (Permaban). Still, William, you should be able to get peace. --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 13:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the other from the talk page 68.160.108.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)--Hu12 13:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Add this one to the list. 151.198.158.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ViridaeTalk 21:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

spamlink in Antisocial personality disorder

Various anons repeatedly adding link to personal site to Antisocial personality disorder. Here, here, here. --Media anthro 12:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It's not hard to believe that some antisocial types are willfully disregarding Wikipedia's rules and norms. Doczilla 22:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Multiple registered accounts

User:Thelaststallion, User:Yu'samabeetch (name violation, by the way), user:Enigmatic Einstein, user:The Real Jayne Cobb, and user:ShepherdBook, have all been posting to Richard Wright (politician), Dr. William M. Scholl College of Podiatric Medicine, and User talk:J.smith, who has been reverting their edits, and pretty much to nothing else (except a couple of other user talk pages, probably in response to reverts or talk page postings).

Perhaps because they've posted comments on his user talk page, or perhaps because he's a new admin, J.smith has done more than enough to try to be reasonable here.I think the entire set of user account should be indef blocked as vandal-only; certainly they are an egregious violation of WP:SOCK, since they all appeared at the same time, all use similar words and phrases in their postings, and all are focused on the same articles, thus avoiding WP:3RR restrictions.John Broughton|Talk 15:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

While the accounts are already blocked, its probably worthwhile to bring it to WP:RFCU.If they created those number of obvious socks, there's a good chance there's a bunch more waiting in the wings. Syrthiss 16:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hm.I've been dealing with Thelaststallion, but I wasn't aware of the other accounts.I'll keep an eye on those articles, too.User:Zoe|(talk) 16:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It wouldn't surprise me if User:Sick of j smith was also on in this.(That account has been blocked.)John Broughton|Talk 19:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Since "Jayne Cobb" and "Shepherd Book" are both characters from the TV series Firefly and movie Serenity, you might want to look for usernames based on other such characters, e.g. "Malcolm Reynolds", "Simon Tam", "River Tam", "Inara Serra", etc. SAJordan talkcontribs 02:27, 17 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Iasson socks

I quote from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iasson:

  • Code letter: F

Iasson is still permabanned by Sjakkale; see his block log; Armodios began by making this edit to Slavery in ancient Greece with edit summary Enough whith this fairy tale !!!! Slavery is a moderm term and does not fit at all in ancient greece. Use labour instead. rv to Ephestion version, which is Iasson's pet crank theory; see several of these sockpuppets.

He also redirected his talk page to Harmodius; the odd transliteration system is a mark of Iasson's puppets and Ephestion shares it.

Since he is evading his block, which is a community ban in support of an Arbcom decision, and using two different accounts to revert Slavery in ancient Greece, I'm not sure which letter applies. Septentrionalis 23:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt Armodios and Ephestion are Iasson; they are pushing his pet issue, and use his naming style; but there is some difficulty in finding an Iasson sock recent enough for Checkuser to work. Can there be community consensus, by looking at the edits to Slavery in ancient Greece, that these editors are Iasson? It would be a bad thing if he could evade an indefinite block by just staying away a couple months. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

They also appear to be revert warring together on Roman Empire, and arguing together on the talk page that the Byzantine Empire was a Neapolitan colony. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Since I have quite a good knowledge of Iasson's sockpuppetry, I can say there's really no doubt that these two are socks of his. I could eventually block them myself as blatant socks, but first I would like to hear if there are any objections.--Aldux 18:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I also have some knowledge of Iasson's edits, and these ones fit him to a tee, though they are less obvious than his earlier ones. Perhaps these are sleepers, or perhaps Iasson is trying to restrain himself. I'd say with confidence Armodios is definitely Iasson, Ephestion a little less obviously so; therefore, I heartily endorse the permablocking of Armodios, but Ephestion is less obvious. If a checkuser could be run confirming a connection between Armodios and Ephestion, perhaps that would be enough to permablock Ephestion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Done, blocked Armodios, but not Ephestion. Considering his last edits, with all those so characteristic pseudo-ethymologies, there weren't really any doubts left regarding Armodios.--Aldux 00:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet of User:Nintendude

User is tracing Nintendude's steps including articles like Live band dance and computer and scatology related articles.ju66l3r 18:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

CommentI'd bet a pretty good amount this is Nintendude based on the edit history (there are some obvious tells even beyond what ju66l3r points out).It's too bad that he's on Roadrunner Cable and they don't use static IPs (though it looks like this has been his IP for a couple of months).It probably should be blocked (and would that block from usercreation as well?) for a while though to WP:DENY.--Isotope23 18:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken

I am just the latest in a long line of people who this user has harassed and insulted (see his talk page).I have posted over 100 well-referenced articles, I spend lots of time fighting vandals, and I don't feel I deserve to deal with people like this.Thanks.House of Scandal 19:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HouseOfScandal&diff=prev&oldid=94565709#Antoine_de_La_Rochefoucauld --Francis Schonken 20:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Independent of whether your question has any merit, how is this an administrative issue? - Jmabel | Talk 20:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Second Jmabel, and a cursory glance at Francis talk page fails to show any harassment. I suggest you show diffs, and do that at WP:PAIN, not here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Korrybean

Can somebody please have a look at this guy's user page: Korrybean (talk · contribs) and do what needs to be done? This semi-new user has copy-catted the notorious "GREEK CHAUVINIST JUNTA" attack pamphlet which banned vandal Kaltsef (talk · contribs) has been spamming across about a dozen user pages a couple of times daily over the last few weeks (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kaltsef and this page history for a taste), and is sporting it on his user page. I don't believe Korrybean actually is Kaltsef himself. Kaltsef is apparently a Bulgarian living in Greece; this guy claims he's Turkish-American. Don't want to take action myself, as I'm among the objects of the attack. Fut.Perf. 20:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea about Kaltsef's history, so I'll leave sock-tagging him and such to someone else if they feel it appropriate. I did remove the attack and left him an npa4im warning due to the severity of it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't smell like a sock (though I can't say I'm super familiar with Kaltsef).WP:AGF he's just a high schooler who doesn't know better.Consumed Crustacean warned him; if he posts it again something will probably need to be done.--Isotope23 21:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks so far to you both. Fut.Perf. 21:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

misbehaving bot

i tried to redirect The Days Series to 5 Days A Stranger series but User:VoABot_II reverted it as vandalism. its operated by User:Voice of All. I left a talkpage message, he didnt reply. how can i complete my attempted page move now? Nespresso 21:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't move a page like that.When you do a "copy paste" move, the edit history is orphaned, which is very bad. Please consider tagging your newly created page 5 Days A Stranger series for speedy deletion using {{db-author}}.Once an admin deletes it, you can perform the move using the "move" link at the top of the page.If you do not have a "move" link or are not permitted to make the move, it may be because you are a very new user.Very new users are not able to move pages as a precaution against vandalism. BigDT 21:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if it even should be moved. "The Days Series" seems to be a more correct name for it, since 5 Days a Stranger is only one of the titles. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at it and made the move before I saw your comment here ... I have reverted my move so that a consensus can be reached. BigDT 21:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

hi, nobody, anywhere, ever, calls this series "The Days Series" which is a ludicrous and meaningless title (and original research). the series does not have an "official" name, so, by default, the first game (and the best known one, with highest google count) should be the title i.e. 5 Days A Stranger, or alternatively 5 Days A Stranger series. Nespresso 21:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you.Please note one thing, though ... the "A" should probably be lower case for naming conventions (5 Days a Stranger series instead of 5 Days A Stranger series).I suggest, since WP:ANI isn't really the place to have this discussion, posting a message on the talk page mentioning this discussion and asking if there are any objections.If nobody objects in a few days, you should be able to perform the move yourself. BigDT 22:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to Caroline Cossey

User 71.29.218.249 (contributions) continues to revert the pronouns on this transsexual person's page, despite repeated attempts to correct this user and warnings to stop. Please note the talk page to Caroline Cossey's page. The Manual of Style states: Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves.

Blocked, per WP:BLP.We no more tolerate this type of crap, especially for living people than we would someone vandalising articles to use racial epithets or to call people fags.Morwen - Talk 22:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR in practice


Debate reopened, now restored at WP:ANI#WP:IAR in practice (revived thread) Duja 22:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Request CheckUser

User:Aperfectmanisaenglishman and User:Englishpound.

The same specifically provocative POV edits, to the same articles, at the same time of day.The similarities in comment/writing style and username speak for themselves.I have a hunch that these may both be socks of another user (perhaps someone already banned).I'm hoping that someone who's seen his style before will recognize him. Dppowell 17:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:RCU. Re I hate the french the celts the germans and especially americans, i've just left him a message. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
English is the official language of the world these days and so everyone should speak it. Contries such as Pakistan,India and kenya are poor because they rejected English rule! Look at them know!Apparently everyone should speak it poorly.It's obvious from the user page and the contribution history that the accounts are being used only for trolling bordering on vandalism. You might want to see if he shapes up after your warning, but I suspect he won't.JChap2007 02:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Insulting classmates by name

A student vandal seems to be slinging racial insults at specific classmates.Can we have an admin delete these edits from the edit history to protect the innocent?I'm sure this question comes up all the time, but I don't know if it's possible.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I normally give warnings over vandalism, and even over personal attacks, I immediately block over racial, gender, and homophobic attacks.I have no tolerance for such behavior.User:Zoe|(talk) 00:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. There is bad, and there is worse...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have serious problems here

I'm the user who worked as Lieutenant Dol Grenn and Pooter-the-clown. I edited the Street Fighter-characters and I searched for more informations. I only added the real heights and weights to these characters and User: Danny Lilithborne called it "nonsense". So he added my two usernames to the Administrators' noticeboard. I'm afraid that if someone else would add the heights and weights to these Street Fighter-characters again, that User:Danny Lilithborne and also other administrators would blame me again. Please solve my problem. Thanks a lot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.32.99 (talkcontribs)

  • I don't see the problem here.Don't add unsourced information to articles and nothing will happen to you.If someone else comes along and adds unsourced information to an article, action may be taken against them (if it is warrented) but as long at that person isn't you creating a sockpuppet account (and this could be discovered by checkuser), I'm not exactly sure what you are worried about happening.--Isotope23 20:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This was also posted to WP:AN; no need to have two threads going.Chick Bowen 05:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


Another problem is that I used several IPs, namely IPs from a school and from a bank and I made the same edits to these Street Fighter-characters and to the list of famous tall men.

But I'll stop with these edits. Promise. I don't want to have serious problems.

Repeated vandalism by Tfleavitt (talk · contribs)

Tfleavitt received many vandalism warnings on his talk page between four and two and a half months ago, but has not been warned since then. He started making real contributions, but almost everything he adds is an unverified statement or personal opinion, i.e. from three weeks ago; this; and a quasi-attack. A few weeks ago, he returned to blatant, frequently anti-Semitic vandalism: his last contrib, eleven days ago; his second-to-last contrib, which came five minutes after an anti-Jewish edit to the same page (which had already been reverted). For the vandalism, he should absolutely, in my opinion, be given the most severe warning, if not a short block. -- Kicking222 22:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Um ... he's already been blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account by User:Can't Sleep, Clown Will Eat Me, eleven days ago. Newyorkbrad 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Haha, I completely missed that. Well, now I feel like a giant idiot. Why wasn't this made mention of on the user's page or talkpage? -- Kicking222 00:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Because anyone can check their block log? pschemp | talk 03:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I've slapped on {{indefblock}} templates so Kicking222 doesn't have to check the block log :P --210physicq (c) 03:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Starwars10

I have just given Starwars10 (talk · contribs) a last warning.Just about all of this User's edits have been vandalism, including vandalistic page moves and additions of false information.Just a heads up, if he keeps it up, he's going to be indefinitely blocked.User:Zoe|(talk) 03:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Marakopa (talk · contribs)

Marakopa (talk · contribs) has been engaging in incivility on some talk pages, accusing editors of libel, attacking another editor for placing a welcome message on his user talk page (calling it "wikistalking"), and putting {{fact}} tags all over the place (probably out of some sort of WP:POINT exercise).For a "newbie" editor, he/she/it has sure jumped straight into some controversial stuff... I suspect sockpuppetry. *Dan T.* 04:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I must say, and interesting first edit and edit summary... Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 04:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I recently removed a comment by this user on Talk:Lerdo, citing WP:NOT (soapbox). The user then claimed it was an attack and reinstated the comment. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 05:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Tajik and User:E104421

Tajik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and E104421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) have been involved in a long Turkish-Iranian feud over issues of historical central Asian ethnic identities, with week-long petty revert wars on multiple articles, POV forks, personal attacks, sockpuppet allegations, mutual accusations of stalking, several blocks on both sides, and other such niceties. After a renewed bout of revert warring on at least three articles I've blocked both of them (see WP:AN3 and my talk page). What can be done to keep these guys away from each other? Short of Arbcom (which might become necessary too though), I propose going ROUGE on them both and imposing an informal community 1RR probation on both of them. Can we do that, through admin consensus? Fut.Perf. 09:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As a fellow cabal member, I endorse your block and the 1RR probation proposal. Duja 09:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Endorse. This has become quite disgraceful. Hopefully the 1RR probation would not lead to sockpuppetry. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Me to: we really need to put a cut too this.--Aldux 16:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The last time Tajik was blocked for 24 hours, he immediately returned to incivility, and was blocked for 48 hours for incivility, then he came back and immediately plopped a bogus Stalking warning on my user page in retaliation for my reporting him.When I complained about Tajik posting the bogus stalking warning on my page, I was ignored, except that administrator Khoikhoi came to his defense, without any evidence, and while evidence to the contrary existed on Tajik's talk page.I certainly hope administrator Khoikhoi can read German.I would hope, though, after a user has been blocked for 24 hours for incivility, then almost immediately reblocked for 48 hours for incivility, then comes back and acts incivil, again, and then posts the incredibly nasty comments about other users (not just E104421) and about Wikipedia in general, that Tajik did, that an administrator would block him for longer than the 24 or 48 hours that did nothing the first time. As long as Tajik OWNS Afghanistan on Wikipedia, no one else will be able to edit it.And, considering how he feels about the competence of other Wikipedia editors, it's no wonder he feels he should own the article.And, yes, I am biased against Tajik, he is attempting to instill hostility into my experience on Wikipedia, in retaliation for a copyedit of the Herat page, and he has a lot of administrator support in owning his pages.Actually, I hope more administrators than Khoikhoi can read German. KP Botany 18:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
PS And if Tajik is blocked how come he is editing his talk page while blocked?[51]KP Botany 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
A blocked user can still edit (only) his or her own talk page, unless the page is specifically protected by the blocking admin or another administrator. This is necessary to allow dialog and the posting of requests for an unblock. Newyorkbrad 18:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, and quick reply, as I didn't know that, and had seen numerous spats about this particular thing on Wikipedia, and thought they had to e-mail or something.But that's not what he used it for, he used it to remove a 3RR warning from another user.KP Botany 18:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but to be fair, that one was not a problem - the warning was for the revert-warring he had already been blocked for anyway, so the warning was unnecessary in the first place. Besides, like many here, I'm not a big fan of sanctioning the removal of warnings anyway. Fut.Perf. 22:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
From what I have personally seen from these two users (particularly on Babur prior to its protection), they have been quite incivil and disruptive. I support the idea. -- tariqabjotu 19:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fut.Perf, you said on my talk page, "for the moment, I propose to impose an informal 1RR regime on them both, on all the articles they've been reverting each other recently". To clarify, this 1RR would only apply when Tajik and E104421 are edit warring together, right? If so, I would support it. However, if it applys to all articles, I don't think it would be very fair both to Tajik and E104421. Khoikhoi 02:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And what's fair to other editors who go in and try to do a copyedit on some article Tajik OWNS, and become a target for his incivility and visciousness?Tajik has been blocked twice recently and warned numerous times, and what does he do?Blast all of Wikipedia for being inferior editors to him.And administrators have done nothing, there's even a notice above Tajik's complaint about E104421, on the 3RR board, another editor complaining about problems with Tajik, another editor ignored by administrators.I tried to use WP:DR, including just withdrawing from the articles for a while, and Tajik blasted me for NOT CONTINUING AN EDIT WAR!And Khoikhoi supported Tajik posting a blatantly false retaliatory stalking warning on my talk page--which is, in fact, the very essence of stalking: creating a hostile atmosphere for other editors, with the help of an administrator.
What would be fair to other editors who would like the Afghanistan articles to be usable and worthwhile for users of Wikipedia?Who don't have all day to edit and administrator shop to get administrators to protect their pages and edits, who don't have all the time in the world to make sure they have an administrator on their side, ready to speak up on their behalf, no matter what they've done?Editors who are targetted by Tajik in retaliation for COPY EDITS, then find out that Tajik is protected by administrators in his atrocious and repeatedly uncivil behaviour?
What's fair to the rest of Wikipedia?
And how unfair to Tajik is it, since he thinks no one else in the world is capable of reading an authorative source and using it properly to assist in writing Wikipedia articles?
Well, obviously I am ticked off at being the target of Tajik's abuse, and of having him targetting me and so many others be ignored by administrators, however, Tajik's behaviour has been ignored for a long long time.Ultimately I don't think unilateral action against Tajik is fair, because I truly believe that he was created by administrators thinking they were doing him a favor by siding with him and ignoring his behaviour--ultimately, imo, administrators who ignored his bad behaviour early on created what he has become: an uncivil, edit-warring, reverting, abusive, personally attacking editor.He does not appear to be able to work with other editors.This has not always been the case, though.
Administrator favoritism does nobody any favors, not the editor, not the community, not the administrator.
The next time he puts phony warnings on my talk page, or attacks me for a copyedit, I would really like to see an administrator take it seriously, and when Khoikhoi comes in to defend his atrocious behaviour, I would like an unbiased administrator to come in and take it seriously.It's a great technique he has, though, attack attack attack, get supported by an administrator, and bam!, there you go, he's got rid of another editor.KP Botany 02:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
PS, And I am going to start editing the Afghanistan and Herat articles and other Afghanistan articles.I never should have allowed Tajik to bully me away in the first place.And I do know better now than to try Wikipedia DR, because administrators don't support editors who try it, and editors like Tajik, who see newbies like me foolishly use it, are probably just snickering.KP Botany 03:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Calm down. Wikipedia does not allow you to simply throw around accusations anywhere and for any reason you please, and you can only harm the site if you're going to jump into debates to 'save the day'. --InShaneee 03:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia administrators allowed Tajik to "simply throw around accusations anywhere and for any reason," against me, and Administrator Khoikhoi did the same thing to me, in support of one of Tajik's "thrown around accusations."When I complained about unsupported accusations by Tajik and Khoikhoi, I was ignored.I wasted my time with supported allegations, Tajik and Khoikhoi countered with unsupported allegations, and I was the one ignored.That's where I learned it from, from another editor, far more experienced at Wikipedia than I am, and from an administrator.Wikipedia does not only allow it, but seems to prefer it, as the unsupported accusations against me carried far more weight than my supported accusations against Tajik--the unsupported accusations carried 100% of the weight, and the supported accusations 0%.
If it is harmful to Wikipedia for users to "Simply throw around accusations anywhere and for any reason," then administrators should not have stood by in mute silence while Tajik and Khoikhoi did it to me.But, administrators did just that, ignored it when it happened to me, probably because I'm a new user.
When administrators and editors use a technique to gang up on a newer and less sophisticated editor, and Wikipedia administrators support it by ignoring it, it's a bit confusing to then have another administrator come in and say, what was allowed to happen to the new editor, what more experienced Wikipedians used against the newer editor, is "not allowed" to be used by the new editor. Khoikhoi is an administrator and Khoikhoi supported Tajik's unsupported accusations against me, without Khoikhoi providing any support for his own support of Tajik.All the more experienced editors and at least one administrator know how to profit form this technique, to scold only the newcomer for following established practices of more experienced users simply gives Wikipedia more of an appearance of bias towards established editors and administrators and against newer editors. KP Botany 15:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not much a fan of wiki-drama, however, maybe it would help if you specified what you want. I don't (and I doubt anyone else does) care if you're right or not, just want everyone to be happy. What do you want, do you want Khoikhoi to ban Tajik? //Dirak 16:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Tajik still involves in edit wars, he constantly removes well referenced information from articles. Especially the articles that's related to Turks, Azeris or other Turkic peoples'. I hope administrators will find a way to keep him away from these articles.--BlueEyedCat 17:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What a lie! Just look at BlueEyedCat's edits...he is not one to talk about other peoples edits...Azerbaijani 17:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What a lie!,is a personal attack here,Please choose your words carefully.
  • Your arguments are baseless. Edit summaries of BlueEyedCat's gives enough explanation about edits. He/she brings reliable sources to article Safavid dynasty, and removed by Tajik( and by some other user]. Tajik also had deleted POV tag from a section in that article.
Combining this incident asUser:Tajik and User:E104421 doesnt represents the events. Correct name for incident (as everybody can see) may be User:Tajik and "Other users".
regards.MustTC 11:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Regards.MustTC 11:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Holy Ghost Preparatory School of Bristol, PA

The administration of Holy Ghost Prep asks that a Wikipedia Administrator please block editing (but not access) for our proxy IP addressess <146.145.221.129> and <146.145.221.130>.

The school has been threatened with legal action regarding a student using the school's internet services to edit the biography of a living individual in a way that defamed the individual, and wants to avoid further problems.

Please feel free to contact me for more information if needed.

Sincerely,
Tom Coughlin
Director of Information Technology
Holy Ghost Preparatory School
2429 Bristol Pike
Bensalem, PA
215-872-3300
tcough01 (at) holyghostprep.org
Someone needs to verify that this is legit before any editing block is used.... but I'd suggest a month long soft-block if everything checks out. ---J.S(T/C) 17:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
J_Smith, I left you some mail on your talk page. Tom Coughlin 146.145.221.130 19:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I talked with Tom over the phone.I'm fairly confident that this is legit. Going forward I see two options:
  1. The school blocks student access to wikipedia - students can't read articles
  2. We block editing access to the IP address as requested - students can still read articles
Does anyone have a problem with an indef block on both IP addresses? (146.145.221.129 & 146.145.221.130). Or maybe, does anyone see a better solution? ---J.S(T/C) 20:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
No, blocking seems fine, if they don't want their kids using the computers to edit WP. --W.marsh 20:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Seems appropriate. ViridaeTalk 21:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely - indef-block both addresses for editing, but also please put an explanation on the user or talk pages so another admin doesn't unblock them unknowingly. And our thanks to Mr. Coughlin for being proactive about the matter. (Although shouldn't he be prepping for Sunday's game against Philly?) | Mr. Darcy talk 02:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

IIRC we have some preeliminary statistics that most vandalism of en wiki occurs from ips during school hours in US... so I will not cry if we block a school or few. Dedicated users can create accounts anyway.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, both addresses now blocked. ---J.S(T/C) 08:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible Sock Puppet

I believe these users may be sock puppets: User:Curaralhos, User:Ilokjju, User:DrPersti, User:ElonMusky, User:Mu8sky, User:Rogerstone, User:Prof nomamescabron, User:Prof Bujju, and maybe User:Uramanbfas,