Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive196

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

Noticeboard archives


Got an issue...[edit]

A user has decided to make it their objective to get all 5400+ highway articles deleted. Just now, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California State Route 37 got created, which is a GA for crying out loud. Any ideas? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I closed it, the debate seems obviously WP:SNOW PeaceNT 05:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason you think this is an attempt to delete all highway articles? Is the user active in other places with this goal in mind?-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The point is that California State Route 37 isn't an ordinary highway, but a major highway of the state. PeaceNT 07:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Quick! Call SPUI! Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, per comments left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 999. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin User:Blnguyen[edit]

This is one interesting admin, his very controversial moves within the past week includes:

  • Use of administrator powers with respect to a dispute he was engaged in:
    • Blocking me for 48 hours while not assuming good faith of my contributions. This was my first and it was without any prior warnings. The reason given was that for (correctly) changing the place of two pictures in Stan McCabe, which also accidentally removed a grammar correction; and that I asked for citations. User_talk:Gerash77#Hello
    • Stating a racist and false accusation that "Iran does not play cricket whatsoever", as to why I shouldn't be editing cricket articles. User_talk:Blnguyen#Block_review
  • Also see his false assumption about sockpuppetry: User_talk:Blnguyen#Thank_you_for_locking_Belgaum
  • Also see Re-blocking a user, after an initial invalid block cleared, see:User_talk:Blnguyen#Frater_Xyzzy

I think sooner or later he has to be reported to the arbitration committee --Gerash77 12:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Provide diffs as to accusation No. 1
  • Iran does not play cricket whatsoever is not a racist comment.
  • Sarvabhaum is a block-evading troll and this is not the first time he has done it.
  • You were blocked because you were stalking Blnguyen's contributions and editing the articles he had edited. There was no content dispute, you were following his contributions and trying to confront him for one reason or the other. Please review WP:STALK and Wikipedia:Harrassment.
  • If one user is a suspected sockpuppet, then checkuser need not prove it. However, I would let Blnguyen comment on this issue.
Nearly Headless Nick 14:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Acc-No#1: Acting in bad faith towards my contributions to the cricket article, and blocking me as a result of my contributions which he did not take kindly of; whereas this dispute should have not been setteled by his use of administrator powers.
  • It is as racist as saying a Jew shouldn't contribute to Manual Labour article, or Africans shouldn't edit engineering articles.
  • "Stalking" is following someone around, whereas I went to read the cricket articles from Blnguyen own user page. Editting those articles for improving the imagery and asking for citations that I did not find in the cited refs, is not stalking. Even if Blnguyen thought my edits had not merit, he clearly misused his blocking power.
--Gerash77 23:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Saying that Iran doesn't play cricket is not racist, nor is it a literal comment - it is meant to say that it is of a negligible standard with no popular following, as can be seen from the fact that the first cricket organisation was only registered in 2003. I am not placing restrictions on ethnic or religious groups to edit any kind of article whatsoever, I am simply stating that the fact that Gerash has taken an interest in these two articles is out of place with his pattern of only editing Iran and Islam articles, and that the articles he edited were clearly marked GAs on my userpage, of all possible cricket articles. Anybody is free to edit cricket articles, but the fact that you went and picked out my most thorough cricket articles, both GA, properly referenced etc, straight after reverting me on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with the charming edit summary "zioattack", and then undoing my self grammar corrections, referencing, prose polishing on Stan McCabe and then tagging things which are already explicitly cited in Irfan Pathan seems to be more than a coincidence. The imagery was not improved. The image is dated 1938, yet you moved it from the 1936 section to the 1934 section, which is even more inaccurate. Besides, it was not an original edit, you simply mechanically undid my edits. Err, no I didn't make any false assumptions about Belgaum, Rashtrakuta, Seuna, etc, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sarvabhaum, and as for Frater, he clearly bragged to his opponents on-wiki that he was evading his block, which had a technical approval at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • What is amazing is that you still are defending the assumption of bad faith on your part. You say I only edit Iran and Islam related articles, which is totally false. While surfing wiki I try to improve any article, including those that are so interesting that none dares to edit them out [2]. Your statements that Iran's [c]ricket is of a negligible standard with no popular following as to why you are assuming bad faith is so outrageous that is not even worthy of a response. Your comments are very controversial and have no basis in Wikipedia's policies, and I believe its in the interest of yourself that you take some time apart from administration, or be given some temporary hold on your blocking previligies, to elevate yourself to standards expected from a Wikipedia administrator. --Gerash77 03:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Lashing and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelvinc[edit]

User:Lashing appears to be unsigned IP, which has been doing numerous POV edits on CityPlace (Toronto), Income trust, and Stephen Harper. My recent revert and request for him to stop accusing editors of being Concord employees has apparently riled him into filing an RfC against me, but curiously enough he didn't follow through with posting the request in the appropriate page! Since I'm not actually filing an RfC against myself, I thought someone can look into it from here. ;-) Kelvinc 21:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I think I will file the RfC against myself. I'd like to see justice served. Kelvinc 03:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


If you look at Endroit (talk · contribs)'s contribs he seems to be engaged in creating every possible territorial dispute template and slapping them on every possible related article, all with edit summaries inviting comments on one particular TfD. I swear to God I have never accused anyone of this before, but this is the clearest example of WP:POINT I have ever seen. --Ideogram 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Note especially from the discussion he is trying to get one territorial dispute template deleted and in order to make his point he is creating all possible territorial dispute templates and slapping them everywhere. --Ideogram 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The templates were added, per TfD discussion for {{Territorial disputes involving Japan}}. It started out as a template which singled out a particular country: JAPAN. Per discussion in the aforementioned TfD, people suggested that the template does not violate WP:NPOV, and encouraged everyone to create similar templates for other countries. If there is any reason to delete any particular country template, please give the reason in the aforementioned TfD, per Wikipedia procedure. If an admin feels strongly that these templates are a bad idea, and have good reasons that WP:POINT were breached, let us know also there also. Thank you.--Endroit 00:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Trying to draw attention to your little fight by slapping invitations on every article you can think of is a really bad idea. --Ideogram 00:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Considering that this is an admin notice board, I guess I should point out that User:Ideogram unilaterally deleted ALL templates in Taiwan and simply explained in Talk:Taiwan that "I hate these things". That is the only potential WP:POINT violation I see. You cannot unilaterally go around deleting templates just because you hate them. Please go ahead an give your reasons in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Disputed islands claimed by Japan. Thank you.--Endroit 01:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no intent of getting into a content dispute with you. I am telling you to stop your disruptive behavior. --Ideogram 01:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Now he's accusing me of vandalism. --Ideogram 01:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that I was already discussing the validity of a particular type of template in WP:TfD, I WAS following Wikipedia procedures. Ideogram, you have sidestepped TfD altogether and unilaterally deleted templates in Taiwan. You CANNOT delete templates just because you "hate them". Please discuss in the specified TfD, and give your reasons why these are bad templates. Also, depending on the way you delete templates, like you did in Taiwan, I will consider reporting you for vandalism next time. Thank you for your cooperation.--Endroit 01:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Territorial disputes involving Japan was nominated for deletion by User:Endroit. He objected to the template because it was the only one in existence at the time, specifically centered around Japan. Firstly, this an example of WP:BIAS, which is not grounds for a template deletion, and he incorrectly considered it as a violation of WP:NPOV. He then created numerous similar templates and added them to a number of different articles. If he had created these templates in the thought that they deserve to exist, one has to ask why he does not withdraw the nomination for the original template in question, the one he still maintains should be deleted. Check his contrib history[3], basically he is creating templates similar to one which he believes ought to be deleted, adding them to articles and specifically mentioning the template deletion in his edit summary. Clear violation of WP:POINT. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that HongQiGong created the first one of these templates, LordAmeth created 2, and I created 4, why accuse only me? If these templates do not violate WP:NPOV as discussed in the aforementioned TfD, where's the WP:POINT violation, HongQiGong? Why is it so bad to create these templates all of a sudden, and what is your premise for accusing me now, after creating the first of these batch?--Endroit 02:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You don't even understand the issue that User:Ideogram brought up, do you? Neither I or LordAmeth used these templates to invite editors to discuss the deletion of the Japan template, a template that you nominated for deletion, and neither I or LordAmeth voted to delete that template. We created those templates as navigational tools. And I had even asked you to withdraw the nomination after you created these other templates, but you refused. Why did you create these templates if you still think the Japan one ought to be deleted? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't jump to conclusions, HongQiGong. I never said that the template should be unconditionally deleted. I said that if the template cannot be salvaged in an NPOV fasion, it should be deleted. We are still discussing how the template can be salvaged in an NPOV fasion. Why withdraw that TfD request when we are having an ongoing and productive discussion? More people are involved now, and that's a good thing.--Endroit 04:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The template is not POV to begin with. It does not comment on the legitimacy of Japan's claims, and it does not state that Japan is the only country ever to have territorial dispute. There is a WP:BIAS problem, but that is not grounds for deletion. It's a problem which, by the way, you and LordAmeth have subsequently solved with the creation of those other templates. Regardless of all this, what you did recently is probably the most blatant display of WP:POINT I've ever seen. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I maintain that HongQiGong's initial creation of a template FOR ONE COUNTRY ONLY (Japan) WAS a WP:NPOV violation as I also stated in WP:TfD. This was in the beginning only, and the situation changed as people got involved and revised the template. Everything was being discussed in a cordial manner, in the TfD discussion.
Then I mentioned that the only way I can support this template was to verify there are no complaints when similar templates are created for Japan, Israel and the United Kingdom, and their rivals PRC, Syria, and Argentina. I went ahead and created templates for PRC, United Kingdom, and Argentina. Subsequently, there was a complaint regarding the PRC template, mentioning that there should be a template for PRC's rival ROC as well, which I then created.
That's when User:Ideogram started this discussion. Anyways, we disagree about the WP:POINT violation.
Will an admin please respond and tell us whether there was any WP:POINT violation here?
If there's no WP:POINT violation, I'd like to go ahead and apply the templates for Israel and Syria as well. Thank you very much.--Endroit 04:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As much as I believe the templates were ill-advised and non-NPOV in that they singled out a specific state, I think Endroit's behavior has gone way over the line. If another admin concurs I do believe some sanctions are in order. In the meantime please stop creating these templates and sticking them all over the place, you've made your point, now let the discussion on TfD run its course. -Loren 04:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Endroit has agreed to stop for now. Unless anyone else has any further objections I'd like to consider this issue closed.-Loren 05:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Conversation/vandalism on Special K article[edit]

A few unregistered users seem to be having a converstation via the Special K article, repeatedly undoing reverts of their edits. Is some sort of block or protection appropriate? JamJar 02:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty much resolved, at least for now -- the page is sprotected, most of the IPs involved have been blocked. I checked the diffs between today's vandalism and Jan 31 (the most recent editing), and there's not much change -- one paragraph that looks alright, and the protection template. Will try to keep an eye on it, but don't be shy about asking for more help if you need it. Thanks. Luna Santin 06:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

More Billy Byars[edit]

There have been a couple posts here already about the problems related to User:Ballog and Billy Byars Jr. and its afd. Now User:Chapado has appeared and is pushing Ballog's points, but with a gloss of civility. Nonetheless, the writing style is unmistakably similar, and this new user has edited solely these related pages. This is exactly the kind of stuff the infamous User:LorenzoPerosi1898 would do on his pet articles. Just something else I think an admin should keep an eye on as it transpires...-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ballog (talk · contribs) Chapado (talk · contribs) LorenzoPerosi1898 (talk · contribs) --Exarion 04:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I tried to do that but left out the "|". To clarify, I am not suggesting these guys are LorenzoPerosi socks, I'm just pointing out that the behavior is very similar to the sort of thing a known vandal have done in a very similar situation.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism noticed on,[edit]

Dear Sir,

I noticed that under "Assemblies and magistrates" someone has ended the section with "mr. beudet is really large and gay". I am not certain as to how to correct this issue, but I did discover that the IP address of the "editor" is If you go to the history page,, you will find there is more that has been edited.

I rather enjoy the information and knowledge that is shared on this site, it's a shame that others use it as a pathetic attempt to get attention.

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

It looks like another user has reverted that vandalism already. You can also revert vandalism, see Help:Reverting for a tutorial on how to revert. You may also want to consider registering to Wikipedia. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 06:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[edit]

Repeat Vandals of Anna Nicole Smith and related pages.

-- OverlordQ 06:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Needs oversighting[edit]

I never know where to put these, but some personal info was pasted here and needs to be removed. I'm not even sure that the information is accurate, which would only make the situation worse if it stuck around. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Should go to WP:RFO. I'll email them. Cheers! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the page was completely deleted. PTO 22:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
No, Picaroon9288, just deleted the revisions with the private info until an oversight can remove them. Prodego talk 22:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Arrgh, I would've said that three minutes ago, but there were too many edit conflicts! Picaroon 22:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As Prodego says, I've hidden it via deletion and restoration, and was going to come mention rfo as the permanent solution, but Yuser beat me. PTO, you can check the deletion log to verify that I wasn't going to leave the article deleted. :-) Picaroon 22:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Too brain be dizzy... Anyway, I looked at the deletion logs before Picaroon had undeleted it. My bad :). PTO 22:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Revision removed. Wow, these oversight guys are fast :). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do make sure that in the future, oversights are done by e-mail. In this case, it was done rather quickly, but the private process at WP:RFO ensures that malefactors are much less likely to view the libelous revisions. Ral315 (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thucydides411 disrupting mediation process[edit]

The Juan Cole page is under mediation, and several contentious topics are being sorted out on the mediation page. All parties to the mediation have agreed in good faith not to edit the contentious sections while the mediation is on-going. Recently, a new user, who is not party to the mediation has appeared on the scene, and after delivering an ultimatum to the effect that he will start unilaterally making changes to the page, proceeded and made those changes, blanking out large portions of the text that were not to his liking, despite being asked by several editors not to do so, but to make his comments on the mediation page, instead. [4][5]. His edits were then removed by several editors, all of whom reminded him that the page is under mediation, but to no avail - he now continues to edit the contentious sections, edit warring while gaming the 3RR rule by making exactly 3 reverts in 24 hours, and a fourth revert shortly thereafter.[6][7][8][9]

Isarig should not be complaining about other users "gaming" the 3RR since that is something Isarig does constantly. Nearly every edit of Isarig's is a revert, and he constantly reverts three times a day, and will report anyone who does it a fourth time even when Isarig started the edit war; more than a few times, I have found him reverting a fourth time at exactly 24 hours and ten minutes (I have reported him for this two or three times and been told simply that four reverts are needed to incur a block). While I share Isarig's concern about changing text that is under mediation, I think his reaction to Thucydides, which was extremely hostile, was unnecessarily provocative and disruptive. At one point Isarig refused to respond to extremely legitimate concerns - concerns agreed upon by other parties in the mediation - and simply threatened an AN/I report. I am very concerned that Isarig seems to use AN/I reports to avoid content discussions -- trying to take his opponent out of play rather than responding to his concerns in the discussion. I feel this is an abuse of wikipedia process.csloat 05:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You are in dire need of reading Tu quoque. My reaction to Thucydides's ultimatum was "You are welcome to your personal opinions, but as you can see, they are hotly contested and this issue is currently in mediation. Please don't edit the contorversial sections on theJuan Cole page while this mediation is in progress" - see this. there was nothing hostile about it - it was a polite request that he not unilaterally edit a page under mediation. You are misrepresenting your true position on editing pages under mediation - you do not share my concern over this, you have encouraged Thucydides to so edit, saying "I don't think there is any harm in removing the entire disputed section until mediation is done". My particpation in the mediation page is well documented, please don't lie about that, too. Isarig 06:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Please stop accusing me of lying; as I explained on that page, my concern is about changing the page without discussion, but I don't think there is a harm in agreeing to remove the disputed text until it is no longer disputed. Please see WP:AGF rather than assuming people are lying when you encounter opinions that are more complex than black-and-white. And I consider this quite hostile, not at all "polite." csloat 06:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[edit]

Continued Vandalism of Various pages —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OverlordQ (talkcontribs) 06:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Puppet Filled Mess[edit]


Where is the best place to report a string of sock/meat puppets these days? I've been editing as anon for years now, and am not familiar with the current meta practices on en.

I noticed some serious disruption in an AfD. Somebody with checkuser needs to sort this out. Just as my luck would have it, I happen to get into a passionate AfD right after I leave the IPs behind, and now I can't bring this up in the AfD itself, as it has moved to semiprot (as it should be) to stop the puppetry.

Thanks, NetOracle 07:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

GunZ the Duel, persistent IP vandal.[edit]

After this comment from (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), there have been many edits to the page, along the same lines, although it's not the same IP, so I don't think I can nominate them for AIV, even though they're most likely socks.

and as you can see in their contribs, more than one from most of them. I don't think this is suitable for AIV, 3RR, or requests for prot, really need assistance here, it's getting stupid -- febtalk 07:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


I just came across this user's talk page, which is a string of warnings and questions about the copyright status of the innumerable computer and video game screen shots he has uploaded. I do not have as much experience with image/copyright stuff as other admins, so I was hoping you might want to take a look at this user's contributions. A vast number of this user's images have no copyright information, let alone source or fair use details, and many others have incorrect tags, in which the user claims to own the copyright. Please take a look at this. I should be asleep right now. --Chris Griswold () 07:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

personal attacks[edit]

I couldn't find a better place to put this, as Wikipedia:No_personal_attacksstates: "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical or legal threats) should not be ignored. Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported on the administrators' noticeboard."

A number of users have been attacking me, I have asked them to stop but they keep doing it. User:Xx236 started calling me a "Canadian Prussian" referring to the bad reputation Prussians have in Poland. My ancestry is not anywhere close to Prussia or Poland, so it is obviously a personal attack. I asked him to not call me that and he made a point to do it again! here. Then when I changed the links on battle articles regarding the Invasion of Poland (1939) to that article's title, it was called "vandalism" by User:Halibutt and User:Space Cadet and deleted. [10][11].

as you can see on User_talk:Halibutt#jadger and User_talk:Space_Cadet#Nomina_odiosa.2C_editio_misteriosa they are talking in some code, referring to their actions against me as "FPS"(first person shooter) which I interpret as ganging up on me. they also call me Corvus Negris Canadiensis and Nomina sunt odiosa. As I am the only Canadian wikipedian that they both have been attacking, I assume this is meant about me.

what is even more intolerable despite there personal attacks and going even farther over the line once I ask them to stop, is what Space Cadet did on my user page and talk page. [12] see User_talk:Jadger#Your_note and User_talk:Jadger#re:jadger

--Jadger 16:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • User:Space Cadet has been warned against WP:NPA. I've asked User:Halibutt not to call content reversions "vandalism reverting" as it is not necessarily a true characterization. I didn't see anythign about User:Xx236 calling you that after you stopped, so I'd suggest seeing if this takes care of it. That said I would urge you to not make changes to the articles in question without first discussing those changes as these appear to be somewhat controversial articles. If you feel the sourcing isn't sufficient or there are other concerns here I'd suggest WP:DR where a Request for Comment or Request for Mediation might be helpful on the content disputes that are apparently happening on these articles.--Isotope23 16:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

thank you, but I must mention that these edits were discussed a while ago on talk:Invasion of Poland (1939) and consensus supported me that Polish Defensive War is inherently POV and wrong. the only people who supported the term were the two editors who are now calling me a vandal. What is wrong with calling the article by its actual title anyways? Halibutt calls it counter-productive, I don't see how

--Jadger 17:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but like I said, it would probably be beneficial to open an WP:RfC on the articles in question and mention the consensus at talk:Invasion of Poland (1939) to see if a consensus can't form at the other articles. IMO at least it seems silly to mask an article name with another simply to rebrand it, but that is just my opinion.--Isotope23 17:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Note to all involved: I explained why did I label Jadger's actions as vandalism on both his own talk page and the talk page of Isotope23. In short: removing valid sources and then removing relevant information claiming it was unreferenced (while in reality Jadger was the person to delete the reference himself) is exactly what I'd call making wikipedia worse. And making wikipedia worse is... yup, vandalism. //Halibutt 14:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not masking, it's simply that we've agreed that the naming should be left up to the author (it's silly to suggest Polish Army took part in the Invasion of Poland, isn't it). And all was fine as long as Jadger did not go on his spree to remove the name he doesn't like and promote the one he does. If he has a problem with it - I'm surely be interested in such a mediation, but so far I'm happy with our previous agreement. But this is hardly related to his edits I called vandalism or his unfounded accusations of personal attacks, as this is a serious issue, while his accusations are not.
Also, Jadger could have asked for some translation if he didn't understand our personal conversation on our talk pages. The FPS remark I made was directed at Space Cadet's usage of a I got your back remark, which made me think he plays FPS games a lot. Really, no need to create conspiracy theories or suffer from some paranoid delusions, there was nothing cabalistic about our small chatter. And no personal attack there either. Sorry, Jadger, but this seems like your own problem, not mine. //Halibutt 14:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Halibutt. This edit is vandalism: Jadger has removed a reference and should be warned to refrain from such unconstructive edits in the future. On the sidenote, a user removing references to Nazi war crimes is somebody who needs to be monitored more closely, I believe.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by User Pschemp[edit]

Could user Pschemp please stop blocking me. I am not a sockpuppet of the user 'Light current'

I have brought the subject up here:

And here on User_Talk:Pschemp#Hello

I provided a list of things I have edited here [[13]] in an attempt to prove that I am a genuine user.

Currently Pschemp is following me and blocking me after every thing I do - and deleting my requests for help. 21:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have explained to this user multiple times [14] [15] [16] to use {{unblock}} to get the block reviewed and stop evading it with new IP's. I've left the message on the original IP and various other socks. The complaints were removed (and not just by me) because they were posted inappropriately to the ref desk after these multiple message attempts. Plus this user started editing the ref desk almost immediately from the same range (87.102) that LC has been using. pschemp | talk 21:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment (yes I realise I have logged out again) - This is the first time I have seen the 'unblock' message - All I keep getting is a 'red' page with 'this user has been blocked' on it.
Also I can't currently work out how to use the template 'unblock'.
The reason why I posted to the ref desk was to find out how to complain - that took several attempts - User:Pschemp kept removing my request for infomation on the misc. desk before I could get and answer - how does that help.
Also I have looked at your list of suspected 'socks' of light-current (from Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_Light_current_evading_block?
these (all) are my edits: (as far as I can tell without checking each one - all of these are my edits)
These are not my edits:
Also seeing as you are comparing IP's I have made a small list of IP's I have used on the science reference desk during the first half of dec 2006 :,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

If you can do a 'IP trace' I think you will find that all these connect to the same place. Karoo ISP

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Light current especially User:Jpgordon's comments - two of the references connect to Karoo ISP these ones are my edits. I think you can easily guess that the Tiscali UK connections are not mine. I hope this may convince you. 22:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to reconsider. Please take my word on the above edits. In the meantime I need to look at how to use the template. I assume you will respond to this. Thank you for an exciting evening (no sarcasm intended). I apologise for 'evading' 'my' block but I honestly can't work out the template at the moment. Also I did not see the explanations Pschemp posted (mentioned above) until they mentioned it here. 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If it helps I will assure you that I will not make any further edits to wikipedia until this issue has been sorted out to avoid any further confusion.(no edits except on this section) 21:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you hadn't kept changing your IP to evade the block, you would have gotten the message immediately. pschemp | talk 21:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I know that now - but at the time I was changing the IP so that I could ask why I was being blocked - I hope you can understand this. 22:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Not true. I told you why you were blocked at the outset. The reply is still on my talk page. You then kept using subsequent IP's to argue about it. I had told you how to appeal it a long time before that. It is not my fault you decided to use 6 IP's to evade the block. If you had used your original IP, you would have seen the instructions on how to appeal. pschemp | talk 00:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you blocked the User, and when he used anon IP addresses to ask how to appeal, you deleted his questions and blocked the IPs because ... he ... was ... evading ... the ... block? Tell me that's not what you did... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope it isn't. He's been an anon IP the whole time. First, I replied to his original message on my talk page. (Which is still there). Then, I left a message on his original IP telling him what to do to appeal the block rather than resorting to block evasion, and then left messages on the subsequent ones but he changed IP's so fast he never saw them. The questions were deleted because, 1. - they weren't questions, they were complaints and they were 2 - posted on the ref desk where they don't belong and 3 - not all deleted by me. Then yes, I blocked the subsequent IP's for block evasion. The instructions on what to do were sitting there on his original blocked IP the entire time he ran through 6 IP sockpuppets. I had already told him why he was blocked at the outset and how to seek an appeal, he just didn't like the reason and wanted to keep arguing. pschemp | talk 00:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
From my point of view User:Mel Etitis has describe what happened to me totally accurately. I have now left a message asking to be unblocked on User_talk:
Also given that user:Pschemp doesn't even know which are my contributions yet seems willing to block me based on Quote User_talk:Pschemp#Hello "I see a lot of similarities in style" I would like this looked at. What similarities in style? 10:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The user:pschemp has attributed my edits to be that of 'user light current' Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Light current eg and even though these are from a different 'provider' than those listed for light current. Quote from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_Light_current_evading_block? -

"Checkuser has come back with possible. Someone will need to look at the content of these. If they are obvious socks, they should be blocked. Ok, the word was inconclusive. Inconclusive = possible. pschemp | talk 04:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A-hem. That's not what checkuser came back with. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Semantics. pschemp | talk 04:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC) "

So basically User:Pschemp is ignoring what another user "jpgordon" has told them and decided to block me based 'inconclusive'

I would like to ask not only about how to stop being blocked - but how to make a complaint directly against User:Pschemp - In my opinion this is a total lack of judgement. 10:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message on User:Jpgordons talk page to see if they can help. 10:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

More evidence: Here

You will find my edit 11:55, 2 February 2007 In between edits by 'light current', on the same topic. 11:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also provided evidence that I have made 'hundreds' of edits on the maths reference desk, see [[17]]. 11:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Also here Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2006_December_18#A_drop_of_water_in_space has an example of me and user:light current responding to the same question. (I am user . 12:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments by SCZenz[edit]

There does seem to be a reference desk editor who uses the same general IP range as Light current, and who makes these edits anonymously. This user has been accused of sockpuppetry before, most recently by Hipocrite (see User talk:SCZenz#Light Current (request from Hipocrite)). As I try to explain in that section, this editor has very different patterns from Light current.

We must be very careful not to block people using Lc's IP range just for editing the reference desk; the editing must be disruptive or clearly in the style of Light current. Although it would save us a bit of headache if this particular user got an account, (s)he is well within his/her rights to keep editing anonymously. -- SCZenz 14:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As pointed out elsewhere, this IP range belongs to a large ISP, so we should take care about collateral damage. Friday (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Reporting incident of Wikistalking[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Many of you are well aware of this long-running feud. I ask your indulgence.

On the advice of JzG, for the past couple of days I've been trying to stay away from the Free Republic article. It has been the scene of many arguments and a lot of baiting and badgering by BenBurch and FAAFA. JzG also advised the two of them, in the strongest possible terms, to leave me alone. I thought that moving to a different article might make a difference.

They have now abandoned that article and followed me to the Peter Roskam article, where their baiting and badgering continues unabated, directed at myself and at others. Review of the article's history proves that I started editing it and then they did. This is not a coincidence. Please take note of the consistent tone of mockery in these diffs, such as the frequent interjection of "LOL!" [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

Here's a case where FAAFA edited another user's post: [34]

I informed FAAFA that I did not appreciate his Wikistalking, that he no longer had an excuse for it since I had provided the answer he had repeatedly demanded, and asked him to stop: [35] But the baiting and badgering continued from both of them, unabated: [36] [37] [38] I again advised FAAFA that he had his answer, added more material that should have been the end of the matter and gave him a final warning about his Wikistalking: [39]

BenBurch got another cheap shot in: [40]

At that point, I posted an unequivocal final warning about their Wikistalking on both of their User Talk pages: [41] [42] Then I wandered off and edited a few more articles, hoping that would be the end of it. FAAFA just kept coming back for more, but I ignored it for an hour or two: [43]

'Bring it on'[edit]

But then both of them started baiting and badgering again, so I came here: [44] [45] [46] And BenBurch even said, "By the way, Dino, you want to complain that I am Wikistalking? 'Bring it on.' " [47]

Note that I've previously attempted RfM but was rejected almost immediately. [48]

Would anyone care to do something about this? Or am I on my own? Both of them have archives on their User Talk pages that are wallpapered with warnings and both of them have recently returned from 24-hour blocks: BenBurch for "incivility and misrepresentation," FAAFA for "personal attacks." Is there a solution to be had? Is there a doctor in the house? Here's the relevant Wikipedia policy page for guidance. Notice the incident where a 24-hour block was extended to an indefinite block, because it was a response to a continuous pattern of misconduct. This misconduct extends back through hundreds of posts through previous weeks on the Free Republic Talk page. Dino 22:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Dino'sconduct isn't without fault either. Posting ultimatums, such as this [49] do NOTHING to support his position that he was 'innocently walking down wikipedia boulevard' and got wikimugged. He's displaying at the least significant incivility, and probably bad faith or tendentious editing tendencies.
That said, FAAFA and BB do seem to have followed him there. In light of ALL parties' desire to perpetuate this fight, I think an admin SHOULD block them all for a period to cool off, buy a 6, drink, chill, and maybe realphabetize their CD collections. ThuranX 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool-off blocks don't really work. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I had absolutely zero "desire to perpetuate this fight," ThuranX. I requested mediation. They refused. I left. The fight followed me. Any perceived incivility in my subsequent remarks was directed at the non-NPOV condition of the Peter Roskam article, which they had never touched until I showed up. WP:STALK is clear and previous ArbCom rulings provide harsh remedies. I disengaged. They followed. I gave them warnings. They ignored them. Dino 22:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
And I would like to ask you, ThuranX: do you believe that you could remain a paragon of civility in the face of such relentless harassment and baiting? Dino 23:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My response[edit]

COMMENT : Dino quit editing the Free Republic article (he claims to be part of Free Republic's 'legal team') because he got banned as a sockpuppet, and one of the provisions he agreed to to get unbanned was that he would not edit that article. His own actions were what got me to visit, then edit the Peter Roskam article. He claimed on the Free Republic talk page that Free Republic members were 'instrumental' in Roskam's victory. I looked at the Roskam article for any mention of this (there isn't any) and immediatly saw POV problems including editors trying to hide and obfuscate Roskam's position on abortion - then DEMANDING that I find ANY Democratic politician whose abortion stance was similarly 'picked apart'. When I found two RIGHT off the bat - Dino changed his 'demand' to any 'Pro-choice Democratic politician'! (I kid you NOT!) I plan on keeping a close eye on Dino's edits as long as he's on Wiki. As an admin correctly observed - he attempts to scrub any and all well-sourced criticism of subjects he supports with 'alphabet soups' of argumentative WP claims. (and prior to that, vieled and not-so-vieled legal threats of libel lawsuits against Wikipedia- until he was ORDERED to curtail the legal threats) - FAAFA 23:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Any diffs to support this spin? Dino 23:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay guys. Enough. Calm down. Diffs help. And FAAFA, I respectfully suggest you do not stalk Dino on Wikipedia. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I remain remarkably calm. I simply seek a resolution of this dispute. I tried to walk away and was followed. That's really all there is to it, and WP:STALK is crystal clear about what to do when someone walks away from a dispute and is followed. Both FAAFA and BB were warned by an administrator to stay away from me. Your respectful suggestions will do no good at all. As I've said, the archives of his Talk page are wallpapered with warnings and he has just returned from a 24-hour block for incivility. The same can be said for BenBurch with the minor distinction that he returned from his 24-hour block for incivility and misrepresentations about ten days ago. At this time, I'm not going to invest the massive amount of time it would take to refute each and every distortion in that "response." If he posts diffs, I'll point out all of his distortions using those diffs. Dino 00:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Here are the diffs Yuser:
FR's 'instrumental'
Demand for dem politician
Answer with proof
Dino 'moves the goalposts' - FAAFA 00:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
NO Admin comments? - FAAFA

FR's 'instrumental' contains no invitation to follow me to the Peter Roskam article and, as I've said, both of them were warned to stay the hell away from me.

Demand for dem politician was not directed to either of these two in particular.

Answer with proof - Very weaselly as it produces two Dem politicians who are pro-life.

Dino 'moves the goalposts' I should have just ignored him and come over here at that moment. Nevertheless, my response was civil. I observed then, and I observe now, that the partisanship isn't Democrat attacking Republican. It's Left attacking Right. Dino

(outdented again) Dino, to some degree, you are bringing this on yourself because you are editing in a biased manner. That said, I think this situation would be considerably clearer if FAAFA and Ben completely and permanently disengage from you and let others keep an eye on what you're doing. Georgewilliamherbert 00:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe there's only one way to convince them to "completely and permanently disengage." The archives of their Talk pages are wallpapered with warnings and there are more warnings addressed to them on the Free Republic Talk page and its archives. I haven't looked yet, but there are probably even more warnings addressed to them on the Protest Warrior Talk page and its archives. How many more times are they going to be given a final warning? The ArbCom rulings described in WP:STALK are clear about this. Dino 00:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Nothing is standing in the way of you filing an Arbcom case. I personally suspect that all three accounts would end up regretting an Arbcom ruling if one is sought, but it's up to you. Georgewilliamherbert 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Admission of provocative efforts by BenBurch[edit]

"I can think of no other way to force him to get the attention of enough admins to finally get one of them to deal with him."[50] here, on my talk, BenBurch ADMITS to deliberate provocation of Dino. This alone should be proof enough of BenBurch's Bad Faith and ill-will to substantiate a block. Beyond that, however, I concur whole-heartedly with GeorgeWilliamHerbert's assessment of the edit style of Dino. He does edit in an agenda oriented way, and his freely admitted close association and pro-bono employment by FreeRepublic make his conservative bias plain as day. This inability to work towards NPOV on so many political pages is no doubt going to continue to provoke editors to engage in tendentious editing with Dino. He's been spoken to about this issue, which is separate from the BB/FAAFA thing, before. I bring it up here agian because it is a sgnificant underlying cause of so much hostility. Further, I think it's likely that the obverse applies to BenBurch and FAAFA, that they edit from a DU based Vista on the world, and their edit style also provokes conflict. I'm not sure how this should be handled. A long term block for all three on editing political articles, and historical articles with US Gov't focuses? ThuranX 00:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

He does edit in an agenda oriented way, and his freely admitted close association and pro-bono employment by FreeRepublic make his conservative bias plain as day.
I do not edit the Free Republic article. I only recommend edits on its Talk page. I have already remedied my COI problem; and I wish others would be as proactive in dealing with their own. On other articles, I am not attempting to introduce a conservative POV, but trying to remedy a left-wing POV that clearly violates not only WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, but also WP:BLP. One of the things I said in Unblock-en-l is that I recognize that "our side" has certain warts and blemishes; that I do not want a whitewash, and Free Republic doesn't want a whitewash either; that all I want is a fair and balanced NPOV article; but these two (and others) are putting all the warts and blemishes under a microscope, and seeking to make any article about "our side" all about the warts and blemishes. Go to your printer, print out a copy of the Peter Roskam article and a copy of the Melissa Bean article (using a Roskam version from just before I started editing it), lay them side by side and you'll see what I mean. You can't miss it. It's as plain as the nose on your face. Dino 00:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't claim that you're only or merely editing in an entirely biased and nonconstructive way. You do have a clear and evident personal bias in your editing targets and style, however. If you were just being disruptive nobody would be standing up for you at all and you'd have been blocked permanently ages ago by now.
That said, I stand by my opinion that you have an agenda and are editing in a biased manner. In many cases, cooperation between opposing biased editors works fine and produced unbiased neutral articles. You, Ben, and FAAFA are obviously not such a cooperative collaborative dynamic tension. Georgewilliamherbert 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I NEVER said you edit Free Republic, do NOT distract with smoke and mirrors. Do not misrepresent me to create the sense that I am attacking you. You are associated with them by your own free admissions, this was covered in your recent set of problems before, related to FR.
Further, your determination that Wikipedia is a battleground between " 'our side' " and " these two and others" (AKA THEIR SIDE) means you are fully aware that your editing is tendentious. NPOV is not determined by YOUR views on the subject, it's determined by accurate sourcing of information. If someone finds significant sources for including criticism, and writes it up with reasonably NPOV language, it's in. Your attitude comes off as that FACTS which are critical are the same as NPOV language which is critical but sources solidly, and so you remove both. This is a problem, and one which antagonizes the other side. Frankly, were I an admin, I'd be sorely tempted to find a way to give both sides a lengthy block for tendentious editing, edit warring, provactive edits in vio of bad faith and inciv. But as with so many of my AN/I edits, I remind all, I am just a user, not an admin. I have no power to act on this stuff, and may lack suitable familiarity with some facets of Wikipolicy. that said, i'ma go get me some sushi for dinner. ThuranX 00:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
If someone finds significant sources for including criticism, and writes it up with reasonably NPOV language, it's in.
ThuranX, I respectfully and cordially suggest that you review WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and WP:BLP. If you need help locating the specific sections I'm thinking of, say the word. Wikipedia is not a list of all the bad things and criticisms they can find about conservative politicians and organizations. Even WP:RS is just the first step. Dino 01:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Dino, I respectfully and cordially suggest that you review your tone and attitude. You're here because of an ongoing dispute. Picking apart my statements for 'chinks in their armor' instead of assessing my point and moving on seems like more of the same bad faith that this entire mess is painted with. My point is that you edit in a highly POV way. So do they. Neither side gets the very sections of policy you jsut tried to throw into MY face. That your instant reaction is to run to those very sections as shields against criticisms of your editing shows me you don't get them, and have never seen the other side, the front of your own shield. Three editors are here for extremely partisan motivations and behaviors, and for the resultant policy violations that their behaviors engendered. Focus on that, not on some percieved failure of mine to properly append subsections to subsections to cut off the appeals options of opposing counsel. ThuranX 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"At this point I don't care if they ban me or block me. Hinnen has been so mega-uncivil and mega-dispuptive that he has made this simply not-fun for me here. I cannot imagine why he is allowed to continue like this. And this wikistalking thing! Hell yes I said bring it on. I can think of no other way to force him to get the attention of enough admins to finally get one of them to deal with him." - at least quote in context, please --BenBurch 01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The above comment was psoted OUT OF ORDER to abridge the text and flow and push BenBurch's view of things. If he can't follow the natural flow of the conversation, per wikipedia's conventional ways of chatting, then he should consider staying out of this. This is more incivility on BenBurch's part, and should be considered a part of his pattern of behavior. ThuranX 02:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
What on earth did I ever do to you that you; A. take something I posted to communicate with you because I am frustrated as hell and post it here and B. deliberately quote it out of context in a way to twist what I said? I can only say that I am very disappointed. And I think that anybody can read time stamps of interpolated comments, this was no attempt to be uncivil.
And as I said, go on an ban me or block me. It really does not matter; I've had my say on what is going on here; BryanFromPalatine and DeanHinnen are either the same person or one is simply using the other's name when it is convenient. He is here evading a block. He is uncivil at all times and all places. He thinks he can edit anything he wants no mater what the consensus of other editors says. He leaves dire threats and pronouncements on people's user talk pages. He attempts to bully people with his sock puppets and threats of lawsuits. He even bullied the bookkeeper at Wikimedia Foundation in to editing an article for him by lying to her about the status of an article that he wanted removed as a citation!
Were it not for him doing all this I'd be editing articles about narrow gauge railroads and radio phenomena, but this was all so blatant. And everybody else who seems to see what is going on has decided to just take hands off and watch! So, I'm sorry if I cannot make myself do that. --BenBurch 03:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You were told in the previous dispute to do just that: Edit other stuff, like Z gauge and RF Design. Instead, you went right after DeanHinnen. You went out of your way to find a new way to hassle and harrass him. Both GeorgeWilliamHerbert and myself have tried, as reasonable people, to engage the three of you. Instead, each of you is so entrenched in your own position that none of you can see beyond. I will not advocate a ban on you, as you have 'requested' above; I believe you are angry and upset and speaking in haste. However, such tempermental statements certainly support the idea that you need to take a cool off. I've already once said it's time for an ADMIN, I repeat that now. ThuranX 03:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
And I did. And I have not been to the FR article since then. And then he went right to an article in my watchlist. So I decided that I could engage even him in a civil fashion and have been very careful to do so. When he made edits I disagreed with I went immediately to talk and tried to engage him in a dialog. However, I will let the Roskam article be what ever it is going to be; Likely a campaign brochure for that esteemed gentleman as long as Dino keeps editing it. However the facts are the Dino escalated into mega-incivility as soon as it was obvious to him that the only means of having his way with this article was to drive everybody else away! You will note that I compromised on a number of edits there, BTW. I cannot think of one point he has ever compromised on. But I'm done with it, and maybe with Wikipedia too. I'm sorry for wasting your time. --BenBurch 03:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dino posting from sockpuppet's IP[edit]

This is troubling. Dino posted from before he signed his name (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) VERY troubling. - FAAFA 00:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That issue was thoroughly explored in exhaustive detail, and fully resolved by Unblock-en-l. Give it up and address the merits of the case against you, sir. Dino 00:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
'case'? 'merits'? LOL! I'll sit back and let the admins do their job. Unlike certain other unnamed editors, I think they're capable, fair, unbiased and certainly not out to 'get me' - FAAFA 00:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you're comfortable not putting up any evidence, I await the decision of the admins. I would welcome being the first with a permanent block from all politically related articles, if BB and FAAFA are the second and the third. But that doesn't resolve the stalking issue. I argue that there is only one effective resolution for that, and it's clearly spelled out in the related ArbCom rulings if admins will just follow those precedents. That resolution is also directed by the tall stacks of warnings, 24-hour blocks and final warnings that they've already received. Dino 00:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
FAAFA, please lay off. Yes, we know he edits from a family IP address at times. We knew that prior to the initial sock claims and resolution. Anyone who wants clarification on this point can ask anyone on unblock-en-l.
Continuously jumping up and waving "new" claims regarding Dean like this is not constructive. Georgewilliamherbert 00:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Support for GWH. FAAFA, that's bad faith and distraction on your part, and is highly distasteful, and even disruptive to the current AN/I. ThuranX 01:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - considering that that IP has been used to field a small ARMY of separate sockpuppet accounts - I have a hard time keeping them all apart. My bad. - FAAFA 00:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Cheap digs at the editors you're involved in a dispute with are also unwelcome. ThuranX 01:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It's true that a number of Bryan sockpuppets were there; it's also true that we have already rather thoroughly verified that Dean isn't Bryan and that they're neither socks nor truly meatpuppeting, though they are related. We know that. It's on the record. Unless someone does something truly new and different and abusive on this point, it's settled and should be dropped. Georgewilliamherbert 01:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Okey Dokey. - FAAFA 01:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

All right[edit]

My purpose is to make Wikipedia better and safer. You may find this hard to believe, but in real life I have a reputation as a Peace Maker. That side of me was shown at Unblock-en-l. Maybe in real life it comes down to my tone of voice and body language. I have always advised the Free Republic legal team to allow me to seek amicable resolutions, and I have always been successful; even in this case, I successfully convinced FAAFA to remove the libelous material from the Free Republic article that I was originally concerned about. It is a demonstration of the propensity for needling and harassment by these two editors, and their consummate skill at getting under the skin of otherwise level-headed people, that I am now being accused of incivility. I want NPOV articles. I want to turn bad articles into Featured Articles. And I don't want any more Siegenthaler cases. I have taken steps toward all of those goals and I have been harassed every inch of the way. Dino 01:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

1)You didn't convince me of anything. 2)The article still documents the death threats (against a sitting president) by Free Republic members. 3) Do you really think you should still be claiming that an article by a notable published author is 'libelous' in light of the numeous admins warnings about legal threats? - FAAFA 01:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Enough. Knock. It. Off. Georgewilliamherbert 01:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
So what happens now? Sit back and wait for Dino to explode or start making legal threats, so that you can have a good excuse to ban all three of us? I'm happy to disappoint you. That's not going to happen. The evidence I've presented is bulletproof; the evidence for the defense consists of distortions, an attempted resurrection of a false accusation long ago cremated by the truth, and childish attempts at further provocation. Enforce WP:STALK. ArbCom has clearly prescribed a harsh remedy for cases such as this one. Dino 02:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You have all recieved appropriate feedback and warnings here for things which several of us agree you're respectively doing wrong. Simply having everyone stop beating each other up and leaving each other alone is the preferred outcome as far as I'm concerned. If they simply drop it or remain engaged only in a productive and constructive manner then I don't see any reason for further preventive actions against any of you. If you don't think this is acceptable, as I said earlier, nothing's in the way of you filing an Arbcom case. I think that's a mutual assured destruction option, but I can't stop you from pulling that trigger.
An admin reading this may also chose to act more forcefully in response to some or all of the above, but I hope not.
Please don't dissapoint those of us who have been putting effort in under the presumption that all three of you can continue to be productive Wikipedia editors in the future. Georgewilliamherbert 03:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, more warnings. That's sure to work. They've worked so well in the past. Dino 03:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
That's incivility to an editor who is here trying to help you. This is not the first act of hostility by one of the three editors involved in this AN/I. This is ridiculous, and I think it's time for an Admin to get involved. (I had a longer comment, referencing Solomon and Shazam!, but I'll hold my tongue. Admins, please get involved post-haste. thank you. ThuranX 03:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
That's incivility to an editor who is here trying to help you.
Let's review: The Talk pages and archives of BenBurch and FAAFA are wallpapered with warnings. They were told by an administrator, JzG to stay away from me. They received an "absolutely your final warning" about incivility from another administrator, Prodego. Both of them have just returned from 24-hour blocks for incivility in the past two weeks.
I requested mediation. They refused. In an effort to defuse the situation, I moved on to a different thread without inviting them to follow me. Despite all of the warnings and in brazen defiance of WP:STALK, they followed me. One of them even admitted to you on your own Talk page that his purpose was to provoke me.
The relentless harassment, baiting and mockery continued. I gave them the answer to the question that they had been using as a pretext to follow me, and asked them to leave me alone. The WP:STALK violation continued. I posted final warnings on their Talk pages. They said, "Bring it on!" Your prescription is another warning, on top of their tall stacks of warnings and final warnings, when ArbCom says they should get either a one-year block or a permablock.
Last night they were already back on the Peter Roskam page. The only difference was that they were temporarily taunting and baiting someone else. I came here, and saw that absolutely nothing had been done except another useless warning that didn't work.
And you believe my skepticism about whether that warning will work is incivility? Dino 10:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WAKE UP.  They're already ignoring the warning you've just given them, and turning their attentions to me. If you think a warning or a short block is going to work, you're dreaming. Dino 11:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no stalking[edit]

And I have taken pains to be even more civil towards Mr. Hinnen:

"The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors."

I ask any admin who's familiar with politics to look at this contribution from Mr. Hinnen, read the Thomas cite to HR 547, Roskams part in it, and judge if Mr. Hinnen, who once alluded to have worked on Roskam's 06 campaign, has or has not conflated Roskam's TINY involvement with this house bill to appear MUCH more significant that it really is. Fuel Bill - Diff In truth, Roskam wasn't even a co-sponsor, and only added a MINOR admendment, like a host of politicians do to EVERY bill. Sure looks good in the article though, 'don't' it? (and people question why I'm keeping an eye on him)

Mr. Hinnen's text:

On February 8, Roskam introduced an amendment to pending legislation that advances the development of alternative energy while saving the taxpayers $10 million. It creates three new federal programs to support development of improved methods to transport and store ethanol and biodiesel, taking the money out of previously appropriated EPA funds. Illinois corn produces 40% of the ethanol used in the United States. "Environmental stewardship and fiscal responsibility are not mutually exclusive and I believe strongly in both," said Roskam. "Ethanol and other biofuels mean jobs for Illinois and clean air for our children." The Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act eventually passed by a vote of 400-3. [51] [52] - FAAFA 12:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the warnings you've just received here was this: And FAAFA, I respectfully suggest you do not stalk Dino on Wikipedia. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Yet you continue to engage in tendentious editing, challenging every keystroke I make. There is no shortage of other editors at Peter Roskam, including an admin who is watching me like a hawk, but you don't believe I'm being supervised closely enough, so you feel compelled to IGNORE YET ANOTHER WARNING. What does it take to get an admin's attention around here? Dino 12:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Hinnen, stalking by definition must include an intent to harrass and/or annoy. There is no such intent. There is no stalking. I have been respectful and defferential towards you in the last 24 hours, and I will continue to be so. If you think that you can ban me from any article that you happen to edit, you are mistaken. Yuser31415 is not an admin, by the way. - FAAFA 13:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: I added a template to miscellany for deletion created by FAAFA tonight, his edit summaries are... interesting and revealing. Kyaa the Catlord 13:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Revealing? That I strongly feel that articles on the homophobic breakaway Anglican denominations that the pro-Gay Archbishop of Canterbury has strongly condemned should not use a photo of Canterbury Cathedral that is home to an entirely different denomination, with radically different stances on Gay marriage and other issues than the breakaway denominations? OK. - FAAFA 14:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
"new template for Anglican church of Rwanda - as an Episcoplian in good standing there's NO WAY I'm going to let them use OUR most famous cathedral ! I'm OUTRAGED!" is pretty damn revealing. If you're outraged, you're not maintaining NPOV and probably should not be editting the article in question. Kyaa the Catlord 14:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
There are other reasons why he should not be editing the article in question. He was warned to stay away from me by an administrator. Warnings serve no purpose whatsoever in this case. They're worse than useless because they create the false impression that a remedy has been provided. A 24-hour block is equally worse than useless because it will be waited out and he will return to this misconduct with renewed "outrage." That is his choice of words and it is accurate. Same goes for his friend, BenBurch. There is only one solution to this problem. Dino 14:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spambots on Talk:Lonelygirl15[edit]

I've just had to revert two spambots in quick succession which both posted huge amounts of Italian spam on this talk page, and - looking through the history - it's been happening quite a bit, from a variety of unrelated IPs. Most of the editing to the page in the last few days has been spam reversion, in fact; is semiprotection in order? (IP blocking won't help - this looks like a botnet - and the URLs are too diverse for URL-based blocking to be effective.) Zetawoof(ζ) 02:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

URLs are helpful to see if other IPs had been spamming around. Maybe the article could be semiprotected, but it would not stop them if they are testing it out. -- ReyBrujo 02:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue's actually the talk page, not the article. And, as I mentioned, the URLs are too diverse to block - the most recent run used a bunch of sites from a free Russian webhost (, but previous runs have included hundreds of randomly generated domains. Semiprotection on the talk page will probably fix things, though; all the edits are coming from one-shot IPs. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
talk pages are all "nofollow" anyway, aren't they? - brenneman 07:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
All pages are nofollow; that doesn't stop people completely, though. Ral315 (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What about spambots that have accounts?? Semi-protection might not stop those spambots that are registered, as there are determined people out there who will go to those lengths. --sunstar nettalk 10:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is why I'd like to see IP based spam blacklists and/or regex {{deletedpage}}s (which I believe Werdna is working on). MER-C 12:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


This user is repeatedly making changes to a wide variety of pages introducing untrue facts. From their talk page it looks like this has previously been accepted as accidental vadnalism or unsourced comments, but the user is continuing to make these same "mistakes" (some of which could be considered quite humourous if this was Saturday Night TV and not an encyclopedia). This has already been reported as simple vandalism, but apparently is complicated. Cheers Chris Bradshaw 11:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't do anything, but I'd say this is simple vandalism. He's been blocked several times before, and his last 4 edits are straightforward vandalism - blanking, personal attacks and adding false information. I recommend a longer block. Trebor 12:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have given a one month block. There was an argument last time when he was indef blocked and it was reduced to 24 hours whether he was vandal only or not. He looks vandal only to me. --BozMo talk 13:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


I received this edit from Jordovan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). This was in response to a request to "play nice" regarding this edit. I have blocked Alkalada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for a month for continued disruption, Jordovan is apparently a Serbian. I not sure Alkalada can ever be brought around, but Jordovan having that attitude is not at all helpful. Fred Bauder 14:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Text removal ban: BabyDweezil[edit]

Did I just perform a new admin action? Instead of blocking BabyDweezil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for inveterate edit warring and especially text removal, after several warnings, I've given him/her a "text removal ban" for all articles. Please see my message on the user's page.[53] Here are just a few of many, many examples of the user removing sourced text and/or references, after my warnings. [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]

It's possible that some individual removals are good, but none of them are done in a good way, and the overall pattern is obviously frustrating for other editors, and hampers work on the articles—compare the talkpages. Note also how the same removals are repeated over and over. (If somebody would like to do some 3RR calculations, good luck—I didn't want to muddy the waters with that at the moment.) BabyDweezil has earned a block, in my opinion, and I regard it as merely deferred. If the ban is ignored, he/she gets it, is the way I see it. I'd really like avoid blocking, though, as I take the user to be editing in good faith and with the intention of improving articles. But it was getting so I had to do something. Your thoughts? Bishonen | talk 17:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

I have reviewed your note to me and do take it seriously. However, should you take the time to review some of the history, you will find that I have largely been removing egregious violations of Wiki policy, gross distortions of fact, straight out fabrications and the like, but unfortunately, with the opposition of a pair or so of hard core, POV minded, intransigent editors who often inserted the distorted material in the first place. I have discussed all of my changes, and for what its worth, most changes have received a majority amount of support in the discussions (vs the hard core ideologues). Likewise Ive been faced with this bloc working together to restore flagrantly biased and incorrect material, with no more explanation than they arent happy with it being removed. I will try to be more genteel, but please be aware that making sensible arguments and appealing to reason and Wikipedia policies re WP:NPOV and the like generally doesnt suffice vs ideologues. Regards, BabyDweezil 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks to me like a block would in order - user has been blocked twice before (note: once by me for a personal attack); is clearly edit-warring, including the use of misleading edit summaries; and is POV-pushing as well, calling reasonable content "distortion" (example). I have no objection to the "text removal ban," but you shouldn't hesitate to move to a block if the behavior continues. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Darcy, just for the record, you blocked me for one single comment in response to an editor who had been cult-baiting, maligning and abusing me incessantly, and continued to, without any action against him, despite my constant complaints. Just for the record. BabyDweezil 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm one of the involved editors. The problem with the guy is that he invests like 10 seconds to remove something, and then others have to invest a multiple of this to put it back. In some cases, he even agrees that it is properly sourced, but claims it is "out of context". But instead of taking the time to improve the text or write what is missing, he just deleted. Yes, this is frustrating.

So this "selective" ban is a good idea, because it gives him a chance to improve his manners. There are other editors (members of controversial groups) sharing similar viewpoints , but who are able to work things out without "delete first, discuss later". --Tilman 19:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm another one of the "hard core, POV minded, intransigent editors." BabyDweezil continually deletes well-sourced pertinent material because he personally finds it to be "POV". He repeatedly asserts that by deleting "POV" material he is removing "distortion" from the articles (there are several articles involved) and thus restoring NPOV. His idea of achieving NPOV, as demonstrated about 25 times by my count, seems to be to delete everything that he disagrees with.

He also inserts OR into the text in order to identify clearly to the reader that a particular element of the article is "POV".

He has ravaged Cult apologist to the point where it had to be protected. There is zero chance of achieving consensus and removing the block there because he is adamant about his edits being justified. Now he is starting in on Cult. Tanaats 20:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding his statement above that "I have discussed all of my changes, and for what its worth, most changes have received a majority amount of support in the discussions (vs the hard core ideologues)." He doesn't discuss the removal of well-sourced material first. Then when he edit-wars and others don't, Talk discussions are then opened by other editors. He does not achieve majority support in the Talk discussions. He has perhaps two editors who weakly support him. However, on Cult he has recently inspired a new editor who has declared his intention of removing all of the "POV" material in the article. Tanaats 20:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite the protestations that I spend "10 seconds" obliterating Wikipedia pages, the fact is I have spent a good deal of time and effort correcting extensive errors, falsehoods, and outright nonsense in these articles. the 2 editors above are consistently inable to respond civilly to my edits, nor to justify them within Wikipedia guidelines, so they instead have mounted a campaign to vilify me. The loudness of their complaints I believe is in proprtion to the disappoiuntment they may have in having at least a bit of their POV's toned down in the artciles. I stand by all the edits I have made, and am confident they will stand up to scrutiny. The articles were POV pushing horror shows frought with fabrications when I began, so ban me or not, at least they are now slightly improved. BabyDweezil 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You could easily get out of this trouble by not "deleting first". The better way to work is "discuss first" / "suggest first". "Be bold" doesn't mean "be bold in deletion". Be constructive, not destructive. The "delete first" attitude not only upsets others, the reconstructing reverts will upset you as well. --Tilman 21:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Bishonen's idea is a "new admin action" only in that it's a bit of mercy and an attempt at avoiding a block.
  • Navou, you refer to the policy WP:BAN, which is about bans in the sense of "formal revocations of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia." I can't believe that I yet again have to urge people to know the difference between a block and a ban. Bishonen is using the term "ban" for something different: an informal revocation of the right to perform a certain type of action. To pick irrelevant details out of WP:BAN off the mark. It's a ban on an action, not a ban on a user.
  • She's putting a message here to get community input on the new semi-block she's proposing, not to drum up support for a community ban. Administrators block for "I warned you not to do that anymore" altogether too often, and here's Bishonen trying to avoid blocking someone by working out a new alternative. She's saying that she wants input on telling a user, "Don't go around cutting large paths with a lawnmower to fit a point of view." The implied "or else" is "or you'll be blocked." The user is clearly ripe for a block, as Mr Darcy points out, and the user's intransigent response here suggests that he's (Dweazel Zappa is male) dedicated and devoted to repeating this action. He/she is getting a little extra AGF from Bishonen, that's all, and she's asking the rest of the community to comment. Geogre 22:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I understand that the user is not banned from editing Wikipedia. I understand that the user is not banned from editing, or further editing a set of articles, or area. I understand the technical aspect of a block; the difference between block and ban. However, if I understood the message correctly, just banned from performing a certain action. If I have applied the definition of ban inappropriately, then forgive me. I understood the potential for this informal revocation to be enforced by a block, if the ban message was placed by an admin who has the technical ability to place a block. Making it a de facto formal revocation. Although the policy does not deliberately define this action, unless I have missed something, I think I applied it correctly. Navou banter / review me 22:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Then you are on record as disagreeing with it? If so, are you therefore agreeing with just blocking the user, or would you prefer that no block take place and that this situation go to RFC, then RFM, then RFAR? At some point during all of that, I assume an RFCU would have to be taken, too. I agreed with Bishonen's position, myself, because it minimized the disruption without all of that, but I did want to see what others thought. Geogre 22:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Not entirely, I would like to see the user providing positive contributions, and the integrity of the encyclopedia preserved. Hopefully both can be served. I do not at this time, see RfC, or RFAR is necessary (and can probably be avoided) and don't understand how RFCU applies (help me out here). My best recommendation would be to talk to the editor about the behavior. Informal mediation may be of some use. DR should be conducted at the lowest level possible, when possible. Ultimately serving the project. Navou banter / review me 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Geogre, how am I being "intransigent." Because I have my own opinion of the matter? Is that the defintion of "intransigence" here? BabyDweezil 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
No, "intransigence" is when you never give an inch in discussion, on the principle that failure to contradict you equals losing, while contradicting you equals "making incessant personal attacks".[63] This is not collaboration, it's intransigence and attrition, and I'm tired of seeing it. Please argue in a more civil and reasonable way on talkpages. Bishonen | talk 21:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Update: the extra AGF approach with everybody discussing away hasn't worked. BD has removed the passage in Eileen Barker about Dvorkin's criticism of Barker nine times in the past couple of days, violating WP:3RR two separate times. Four of the reverts were made during a 7-hour span after my "No more non-consensus removals" warning. There was no consensus for these removals on the talkpage, quite the opposite. [64] I don't like these threats of further removals, either.[65] OK, that's it, after all the warning and carry-on: 24 hours for 3RR+ inveterate edit warring+incivility. The user knows about 3RR.[66])—though if this was just a 3RR matter, I would give a shorter block. Any thoughts? Bishonen | talk 23:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Has this editor done anything productive? I've looked a little, and all I see is EW against CON, with a lot of NPA violations and general incivility and POV pushing. I'm looking for ROI, frankly. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:WOTTA, Killer. Bishonen | talk 20:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
And your point is? *innocent puppy here* I think you're failing to AGF me, FWIW. HTH. (goes off to RTFM.) KillerChihuahua?!? 14:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua, I do hope the irony of your use of such a deprecating, uncivil, POV tone in describing a fellow editor's supposed "NPA violations and general incivility and POV pushing" has not been lost on you. It certainly wasn't on me. BabyDweezil 15:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(undent) There is no irony, intentional or otherwise. What you call "deprecating, uncivil" is merely my reporting of findings. POV is an absurd accusation to make here; NPOV is for articles. On AN/I we are being specifically requested to give our opinions, based upon observations, experience, and native levels of intelligence. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nirelan responding to "final warning" for vandalism on his page and his IP page just switched to a new IP[edit]

After having received a "final warning" both on his own talk page and on his IP at (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) , Nirelan (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has started deleting material from Dave Winer using a new IP address, (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). All article edits by this new IP have been reverted ([67]), edits by this new IP address to that talk page are signed with "Nirelan" ([68]), please somebody stop warning this vandal and start blocking him. betsythedevine 01:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done a handful of 3RR blocks and whatnot for these individuals.—Ryūlóng () 05:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Update: The same user is evading those blocks and vandalizing Dave Winer today with the new username Nirelan2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). betsythedevine 16:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Before this gets out of hand[edit]

Ok, this has been on my mind for a while. I think User:MichaelLinnear is pretending to be my sockpuppet. So, he's not, ok? I can do another checkuser or whatever. But don't bite off his head in case he's not, since his activity here doesn't bother me at all. Just don't ban me without asking questions first ^_^ Milto LOL pia 10:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Where? Glancing at his contribs I cant see how (granted its after midnight here :P) Glen 11:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
He'll occassionally pop up somewhere where I am. Here, here, here, here, here and here are some examples. One of his first edits was to my talk page, and then he dove right into a couple of articles. He edits sporadically and often popped up to edit the same pages I was and then work somewhat on his "favorite articles" and their talk pages. Again, this doesn't bother me at all, but it does look fishy and I'm just throwing it out there as a possibility so I don't get smacked with a sockpuppetry ban later. Milto LOL pia 11:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
That's just what we'd expect you to say! BTW, sockpuppetry isn't against the rules. Sockpuppets that are created to try and skew things or to be abusive are, but sockpuppetry on its own is ok. See WP:SOCK for more. This doesn't really apply to this situation specifically, but I see an opportunity to clear up a possible misunderstanding based on what you wrote above. - CHAIRBOY () 15:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

User: Tom Voigt using abusive language/making personal attacks[edit]

A Wikipedia user has posted what I consider to be abusive comments and personal attacks against myself and another editor at Talk: Zodiac killer. The user in question is User:Tom Voigt. The section where the abusive comments appear can be found here: 20 A letter to, the individual adding links to Can someone please review this and step in to moderate? Thanks. Labyrinth13 16:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppeting[edit]

I would very much appreciate it if someone could do a CheckUser on Biaothanatoi (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), and (talk · contribs). I suspect that the latter two are being used to create an illusion of support for his position, and to keep him from facing responsibility for the personal attacks being made under the IP addresses. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU is the place to make that request. DurovaCharge! 18:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Lists of names[edit]

Where is the best place to start a community discussion on lists of names within articles? What I am referring to are Category:Given names articles which are not articles but lists of people with first name _______. (jarbarf) 17:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Username (jarbarf) question[edit]

In light of a controversy of my last username block, I thought I'd drop a note. I've advised User:(jarbarf) to change usernames or risk a block in a few days. The user has made good vandalism reversion contributions, and I'd like to see a name change followup. However, I don't think that "(jarbarf)" is an acceptable username. Please comment if you wish. Teke (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

How exactly is that an unacceptable username? —bbatsell ¿? 05:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, a jar of barf seems to imply an excretory function. Teke (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try to restrain my comments, but in my humble opinion, that's a ridiculous application of WP:U (something that has gradually become more and more of a problem lately). That policy is meant to restrict usernames that have an actual risk of being inflammatory. Our use of "excretory" in that policy is a euphemism for "shitting", pardon my French. If my username were "SweatingMan", would you say that it should be banned because perspiration is an excretory function? I really hope the answer is no; please, let's stop the slow creep of that policy to cover nearly any possible name. It's really unnecessary. —bbatsell ¿? 05:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, those are good points. It's why I posted here. I do appreciate the input, and it's why I took the time with this. Teke (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't consider this a violation of WP:U.--Jersey Devil 05:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I don't really have anything to add to this discussion, I just wanted to acknowledge that I'm aware Teke has challenged my username and I think this really silly. That is all. (jarbarf) 16:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Any possibly controversial WP:U blocks should probably go to WP:RFC/N. And yeah, I agree that this isn't a violation. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • It could be "Jarb arf", not "Jar[of]barf." .V. [Talk|Email] 17:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the notice and apologized to the user for bothering them, and thanks Consumed Crustacean for the point to RFC/N. Teke (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeated speedy nominations -- bad faith or just stubborn?[edit]

John T. Reed is a new article; it was appropriately speedied twice before for no content. I started to hang a tag on it myself but did a quick Google search and found two solid articles (on both MSN Money and The Sydney Morning Herald's website) establishing notability. Reed apparently makes a living exposing shady dealing in the real estate world; I don't know if he's legit or not, but his refs show he's notable.

I noted the references on the article talk page and added the refs to the article itself. The stub also has enough content this time to qualify for retention.

A new single purpose user, Jscottccre, then tagged the article with a {{db-spam}} tag. I removed the tag and left a note explaining my reasons on both his talk page and on the article talk page.

He later tagged the article again in spite of this.

I find it unusual that a new user would immediately be familiar with {{db-spam}} 6 minutes after creating his account, but perhaps he's learned the ropes as an anon. I note that the vandalism policy specifically cites cites "Abuse of tags" as a form of vandalism. I'm reluctant, however, to go so far as accusing Jscottccre of vandalism so I've left another, longer note explaining the rules in greater detail.

In any event, I can't watch this article 24 hours a day and I'm not an admin -- I could use some help or advice on how to keep it from getting deleted when I'm not watching. --A. B. (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In principle the reviewing admin should check the talk page before deleting and it should not get speedy deleted. I agree with you on notability but the article is nearly a candidate for speedy for shallow content. I'll watch it too, and of course he has 2RRs on the tag already. --BozMo talk 13:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, whether an article is spam is defined without reference to whether the subject meets the notability guidelines or not, but the whether the contents of the article are blatant advertising. That being said, this does not taste like spam. It is not an overt ad. In addition, it was created by an established user with diverse contributions, so it is not the usual hit-and-run by someone trying to promote himself. JChap2007 13:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Admins accusing editor of being sockpuppets of every banned user in Wiki history[edit]

I go by the ID User:MinaretDk. I've been accused of being Bhaisaab, I've been accused of being His Excellency, god knows who I'll turn up being next. It seems there are no standards of performance that admins abide by. Dmcdevit accused me of being Bhaisaab, who happens to have been blocked for a year.[69] Last night Bhaisaab came as an anon IP, stated who he was on User:Blnguyen's talk page, and then edited mine. [70] I happened to be around at the time and responded to him. Anyone with CheckUser could've verified that we're two users using different IPs at the same time. Dmcdevit did what any responsible admin would do- he blocked my talk page to bar me from pointing out how shoddy his work is. My point is still rock solid though, which is evident in that Jayjg has moved on to accuse me of being HisExcellency on the very same grounds that had me accused of being Bhaisaab.[71]Should I go through the process of proving I'm not User:His Excellency, or should I just give up and realize that as soon as I'm done proving I'm not him, I'll be "confirmed by CheckUser" of being someone else? Mediocrepeopleshouldntedit 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well gee, how far do we push WP:AGF? On your first day of editing - today - you've chosen an inflammatory username, gotten your user page blanked for inflammatory content, and learned all about CheckUser and several noticeboards. DurovaCharge! 18:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Please qualify your statements with evidence, or at least good rhetoric. Show that you're actually reading what's being written. My first sentence in the paragraph above was "I go by the ID MinaretDk. My first day of editing was on the 14th of December, not today, and the only thing I edited then was the article Bangladesh, which neither Bhaisaab nor HisExcellency edited. I don't see how my ID there would be inflammatory, it's a reasonable opinion. People who aren't good writers or don't know how to responsibly edit shouldn't edit encyclopedias. Monsat 18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but what's your point? The whole thing comes off like you're itching for a fight. I strongly suggest you change the sockpuppet's name or stop using the sock altogether. Plenty of people learn to edit responsibly and become better writers in the process of editing. DurovaCharge! 18:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
This checkuser block is final. No discussion. The information will not be released for WP:BEANS sake, but I have spoken with Dmcdevit, who has confirmed that Minaret's claims are false. See User talk:MinaretDk. Daniel.Bryant 20:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

User Hipocrite[edit]

User Cada2[edit]

A bunch of new pages were just created by a new user, User:Cada2 and it seems like each and every page is a biography with the exact text taken from the web page listed in the external link. I'm a new editor and I don't know if I should be marking all of these Cada2's pages as {db-spam}, {db-copyvio}, or what. Can someone else here give me an opinion? My gut feeling is that Cada2 is the owner of the web page listed in the external links, thus making all of these spam, but I'm not sure and I don't know if I should do anything aside from doing a speedy delete on all the pages (reason: copyvio) Some (most?) of the people in the pages are notable (well known musicians according to google), but the wikipedia articles just don't seem right. Thomas Dzubin Talk 19:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Some don't seem to be copyright violations. I'd say that isn't the right choice for all of them. I'd go through and remove the links from all. If they don't assert notability, tag and bag for speedy deletion. If they assert but aren't worth keeping, prod. If they are worth keeping, put cleanup tags. I've dropped a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/To-do#Users to check out. GRBerry 19:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, looking at his contributions, he did about an hour yesterday, and an hour today. A block right now would be punitive, at least in my eyes, not preventative, because he hasn't been active for an hour and a half. If adequate warning and explanation is given, and he repeats again tomorrow, the issue will be different then. GRBerry 19:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks... Before I came here, I had already marked 3 pages speedy for copyvio and they have been deleted already....I'll take a look at the rest over the next few days if I have time Thomas Dzubin Talk 19:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarcastic post on user page[edit]

This post was left on my user page by Intothefire. I wonder what could be the constructive reason of this sarcastic post. And could someone tell this user that messages should be posted on talk pages. Szhaider 19:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not actionable. --Ideogram 19:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It sounds as though he's accusing you of being User:Siddiqui. Difficult to parse, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyways I am going to delete his post. I hope it is not a crime to edit when it is not vandalism and the editor is not blocked. I contacted User:Siddiqui through wikipedia about 2 weeks ago asking him if he had any sock puppets and asked him to declare them as his alternative accounts. He never responded. Szhaider 19:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Generally you are free to edit your user page and user talk page as you wish. --Ideogram 19:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to refer the poster to Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful. MastCell 20:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT moved[edit]

Single-purpose new user User:Hiablke created Wikipedia:Do not distract Wikipedia to illustrate a point and pointed WP:POINT to it.