Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive81

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

Noticeboard archives


I do have to say that he is a knowledgable editor and has dedication. However, we have been having some issues lately. This would be an ordinary content dispute; however, SPUI has been uncivil (reverting with no discussion of templates, edit summaries, and various comments to users using profanity and references to body parts). Also, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war has placed him on probation, I believe.

Pages affected: (feel free to add others)

Also see page move log.

Pages with incivil comments:

A very compelling argument, indeed. Nohat 05:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)"

  • Comment "Fix the errors and general bullshit in State Route 15 (California) and Interstate 605 (California) once the 3RR deadline expires" on userpage

Very strange page moves:

  • 21:43, February 28, 2006 SPUI m (moved Talk:Highway 17 as the local idiots call it to Talk:Highway 17 (California))

(cur) (last) 21:41, February 28, 2006 SPUI m (moved Talk:California State Highway 17 to Talk:Highway 17 as the local idiots call it)

Really, this is two disputes here: regarding infoboxes and naming. However, the infobox one is involving the remodeling of it, and the naming one has to do with the controversial road naming policy WP:NC/NH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that his probation applies to disruption and provocation, not colorful language. I wish SPUI would be more civil; I think we all do. But (absent any diffs) I don't see anything here that's escalated beyond a typical content dispute. Chick Bowen 05:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe not even the arbcom thought a civility/NPA based remedy was a workable proposition... :/ Looks to me at first sight like a content dispute bordering on revert-warring, but then again there's no specific provision about that either. I'll try the "having a quiet word" approach -- someone throw water on me if I return in the form of a charred lump. Alai 06:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
To clarify: 1) Neither civility nor edit warring were brought before us, and the case dealt with SPUI in a very limited way. The ruling is not at all a tacit approval of his other behaviors. 2) Under probation, he may be banned for disruption of any kind, at the discretion of an administrator. This can very plausibly include either incivility or edit warring, if an administrator deems him to be acting disruptively in that regard. Dmcdevit·t 08:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I was in no way suggesting there was any "tacit approval". To clarify myself: my judgement is that his edit-warring and incivility is not particularly disruptive in these cases. But that's a sufficiently open-ended criterion that others must equally decide that for themselves. (Now, his signature I consider pretty WP:POINT-laden, but I don't think I'm entirely uninvolved or neutral on that, so won't be taking any action on it myself.) Alai 19:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Based on the link you gave, WP:NC/NH, which SPUI created, it appears SPUI is acting in good faith, by persuing, consistent, more general resolution to the naming disputes regarding roads throughout the United States. — Mar. 3, '06 [06:14] <freakofnurxture|talk>

The problem is beginning to spread. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to I-95 exit list, yes. The article went to AfD, and no consensus was reached, yet he turned the article into a redirect—repeatedly and four times in twenty-five hours (17:43 4 Mar 2006 to 18:13 5 Mar 2006). His language hasn't been uncivil, but his discussion of the matter has largely been via edit summary. —C.Fred (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed it has. He's also taken to unilateral reverts of Interstate 605 (California) which had previously been agreed apon to keep the CA routebox, and he knows it too.JohnnyBGood 22:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Now he's taken his unilateral crusade to California State Route 283. JohnnyBGood 01:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Would specific page banning be appropriate here? Or revert limitations for road articles? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Might be nice if you thought about the versions rather than blindly reverting. Anyone who thinks the infobox on California State Route 1 is fine should not be making consensus. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
He's right about the infobox, it is horribly mangled. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Quit edit warring. SPUI has a point and you need to find a way to compromise. Specific page banning is ridiculous--these are good faith edits. There's no discussion at Talk:California State Route 283 at all! Chick Bowen 02:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

But there are many discussions- at WT:CASH, Talk:California State Route 15, WP:TFD, Template talk:Routeboxca2, Talk:California State Route 1. In these most uphold the routebox. SPUI is acting against consensus here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus to delete or remove the infobox, so SPUI worked on it. The consensus was for improvements as opposed to deletion. I'm not endorsing his particular improvements--I don't really care. But this is absolutely not a situation for admin intervention--you need to work this out with him and with other concerned editors. I'm sure if you found a way to include SPUI's visual improvements without losing any information that everyone would be fine with that. Look, this is a perfectly banal editing dispute; it has nothing to do with the arbcom ruling regarding SPUI, and you are asked to please stop bothering administrators about a non-administrative issue. Chick Bowen 03:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You are considering that now that we've appeased, that he's moved like 4 other pages as well, starting wars there? All without consensus at WP:NC/NH? Also requesting permission to rollback the moves considering that they were all done without consensus.--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. We have a centralized discussion open, have made MANY compromises and he is unyielding. He continues to act unilaterally against consensus with no room or compromise. He's un-Wikipedian.JohnnyBGood 23:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, as a Wikipedian his 50k edits are nothing to your 150. It's agreeing with others that makes a Wikipedian, not e.g. WRITING AN ENCYCLOPEDIA - David Gerard 23:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Having 50k edits doesn't give his opinion any more weight then a user with 2. Not when he's acting against consensus. Who does he think he is George Bush? JohnnyBGood 23:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Everyone has an equal opinion (unless they're a vandal of course). People are entitled to have different opinions, you know. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

And people justify this non-consensus moving of pages how? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is continuing. SPUI seems on a mission to go ahead with his own disambiguation methods, even adding pages for "City Name (ST)" contrary to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#North_America. While I appreciate that he is putting in an effort to build WP, his behavior regarding ignoring other editors in establishing standards thru voting and consensus, his blantant disregard for established guidelines, followed by his continued un-civil behavior makes working on these projects challenging to the rest of us to say the least. --Censorwolf 20:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect.
There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect.
There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect.
There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect.
There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect.
There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect.
There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect.
There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect.
--SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Since Censorwolf didn't explain what he's talking about, I will. He's complaining about me making redirects like San Francisco (CA) to San Francisco, California in order to use with the pipe trick. I have been doing this for a long time. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Correct, there IS nothing wrong with linking to a redirect, and that is not the issue. However, creating redirect pages to link to just because you prefer another name format contrary to accepted WP guidleines for location names IS inherently wrong. Just link to San Francisco, California like the rest of us do instead of creating a whole other non-standard page. --Censorwolf 21:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The wars have spread to New York. Please somebody do something! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am doing something, and you're going apeshit over it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
What you have done to the New York pages, I have undone. Daniel Case 21:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Apparently SPUI's approach is when he is in a disgreement with someone he targets pages that editor has worked on and applies his rude disambiguation rules in violation of concensus building. However, as long as there are also reasonable editors working on the road pages I am sure that sanity will prevail. --Censorwolf 03:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Apparently. I guess we can add stalking to his list of fine qualities. He's also undone serveral of your new york page moves. Again against consensus.JohnnyBGood 19:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads has been opened. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Colignatus, escalated[edit]

I asked earlier for Colignatus (talk · contribs) to be blocked for making personal threats against me, when he was threatening to contact my MIT dean to try to intimidate me into allowing his POV original research on voting system articles. Other admins weren't willing to block him at the time, encouraging an RfC instead.

Joseph Lorenzo Hall, who has come to my defense in the discussion and endorsed the RfC, is now the target of personal threats himself:

"I noticed that you are at SIMS, so now I have to write to Hal Varian, if he's still there. Why don't you behave decently, it would have saved us all a great deal ?" -- Colignatus

Colignatus has been warned several times that he can be blocked for such threats. Since he is not actually being blocked, however, he has the opportunity to extend his threats to more people. Every day that this RfC goes on, as well as the RfAr that would probably have to follow it, is an opportunity for Colignatus to make more threats against diligent Wikipedia contributors. I maintain that he should be blocked now, indefinitely, by an uninvolved admin.

I quote the policy on threats at WP:NPA:

Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why.

Yes, the situation does fall under both "other" clauses. Editors have been banned for threatening to contact employers in the past, though, and I think contacting academic superiors falls along the same lines. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This behaviour is increasingly distressing. As I cannot find any edits of Colignatus' that are not either self promotion or personal attacks, despite several warnings, I've blocked him indefinitely. If he is able to demonstrate to me or any other admin that he will not engage in this behaviour further, he may be unblocked, but if the behaviour does continue after being unblocked, then I expect that he will be blocked again.--Sean Black (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

He just send me the following e-mail:

Geachte heer Koot,

Ik zag dat u een block signaal op mijn user page heeft gezet.
Wonderlijk dat zoiets kan.

Maar, u studeert wiskunde aan de univ. van Utrecht. 

Twee punten dan:

(a) Wanneer u Richard Gill kent, moet u maar eens naar mij vragen.

(b) Wellicht wilt u mijn concept brief aan de hoogleraren van MIT en SIMS lezen, die ik
nu in arre moede op mijn talk page heb geplaatst. Wanneer Rspeer en anderen niet zo vol
onbegrip waren en mij wat tijd hadden gegund, dan had dit allemaal niet hoeven gebeuren. 

Met vriendelijke groet,

Thomas Cool / Thomas Colignatus

Basically asking me if I know Richard Gill (a professor at the math department where I study). —Ruud 23:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

my dealings with this user (over a page deletion) weren't the best dealings ive ever had either (i put them down to newcomers in-experince) Benon 17:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Page move vandal[edit]

Zephram_Stark..._Non_Stop_Running_ArbCom (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Don't worry, I cleaned up his shit. — Mar. 12, '06 [12:38] <freakofnurxture|talk>

New admin seeks 2nd opinion, please[edit]

I have just closed an AFD but subsequently discovered some irregularities. I've not had any sleep for quite a few hours more than is healthy, and I'm a new admin, so I'd appreciate some advice. A synopsis of the problem and the two alternative solutions I've proposed are at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Knox (flash artist). Thanks in advance. --kingboyk 14:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm kind of torn as well. I think my suggestion is bring it to AfD, and link the previous afds. The article itself is close enough imo to the deleted versions that it *could* be speedied and protected and have the earth salted. That being said, a casual google search showed a washington post article from 2005 12 10 exists that mentions him. I didn't look up the previous afds, I don't know if stuff like that was already considered and discounted.
...but if someone wanted to salt the earth, I wouldn't be that upset. :) Hope that helps --Syrthiss 15:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It looks like User:JzG deleted it again (having reviewed my synopsis), but the articles have been recreated yet again over night (rolls eyes). I'll rereredelete as recreated material, but perhaps we need to protect the pages or if an article appears again give it a new AFD run. --kingboyk 04:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
And it's been recreated once again so I have protected Knox (flash artist). --kingboyk 05:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


hi there my freind asked me to join and i'm new so i am not sure where or how to report abuse by a mod, i was just taking a look at User:Aucaman's activities log and came upon this page and this post on that user's guestbook [1]

i don't know if any of adminstartors here can read or write farsi like mr Aucaman but to roughly translate mr Aucaman is telling that guy in farsi that 'your are a backward illitrate Iranian, your father is an illitrate killer just like the king of Iran cyrus was a an illitrate killer' this is shocking comment coming from a modrator. does wiki allow the modrators to act this way?!?!/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Note: I moved this here from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR Prodego talk 16:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman is not an administrator. We don't have the title of moderator here. Chick Bowen 16:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
If, however, we can verify this translation, then a block would be in order for violating WP:NPA. Stifle 18:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I've asked User:Aytakin to take a look. Chick Bowen 19:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, when I read it my eyes almost popped out!! The following " payande IRAN! hala boro kashketo besab. mordeparast. bisavade aghaboftade. koorosh kabiretam be joz ye bisavade adamkosh bish nabood. hadaghal oon ozresh movajahe. vali to....??? mozdooram babate." translates exactly out to :
Long Live Iran! Now, go and get lost. Death praiser. You illiterate mental. Your Cyrus the Great was nothing but a illiterate and murderer. But still he is long gone and forgoten. What about you.....??? Your dad's mercenary.
I must say that this is very offensive to the user whose page this was left on and also Cyrus the Great who happens to be loved by many. I think this is User:Aucaman's way of retaliating against the Iranians who are in an edit war against User:Aucaman on the Persian people page. This particular user has been very offensive to Iranians. Also I will gladly help with any translating in the future. --(Aytakin) | Talk 23:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems there's a long history here, some of which is recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aucaman. Clearly the comment above is of a different sort than what is discussed at that RfC. However, this situation seems to be escalating, and I would ask other admins to take a look. Thanks. Chick Bowen 01:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been poking around here for a while, and I must warn any admins looking into this situation that there's a lot of innapropriate behavior on all sides, reported and not. --InShaneee 16:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Aucaman was wrong to lose his temper, but he did so in response to severe provocation -- the anon he was abusing had started the interaction by leaving taunting messages in Farsi on Aucaman's talk page. I can only read bits and pieces of Farsi, just some of the vocabulary annexed into Urdu, but I know that the anon was telling Aucaman, "Shut up, Jew!". Zora 01:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I have warned the other user, (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), as well. Chick Bowen 02:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I can read a bit of Persian and I hereby verify Aytakin's translation. Both users should be punished in my opinion. But I'd like to point out that it's simply amazing how User_talk:Aucaman manages to get away with so much on this website. There are at least half a dozen incidents concerning his behavior reported on this page alone, yet he always manages to get away. Even when he was blocked, his block was lifted within an hour. Now I do know that User_talk:Aucaman is an active user with a lot of contributions, but that should not give him immunity when he obviously breaks the rules on regular basis. --ManiF 14:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


I've given an explanation here. This anon came from nowhere and started attacking me. He's probably one of the users I'm already involved with who decided to come back with an ip and attack me. (How else could he know I was Jewish from my edit here???) AucamanTalk 02:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Julian Thome[edit]

Check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effection: Hellraiser and Julian_Thome (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). This kid has been at it for months - reappearing every couple of weeks to post articles about a movie that he fantasizes he's directing and producing, with all his favorite Hollywood actors in it. That seems to be the beginning and end of what he has to contribute, and his repeated creation of deleted material is disruptive. I'm reluctant to just throw a long block at him, because he seems to have stopped for now, but I'm reluctant to do nothing, because Wikipedia isn't a playground, but a short block seems pointless. So, I thought I'd post here and see what others think. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a month, though, honestly, he needs to be blocked indefinitely if he pulls this crap again. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I've changed my mind. He's been plonked indefinitely. After perusing his talk page, I was reminded of all the emails promising to return and recreate deleted material and vandalise from the last time I blocked him. He broke his last straw ages ago. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am being stalked[edit]

After trying to clean up gross POV problems in several articles, I have now begun being wikistalked by Palmiro, Zero000, and Ramallite.

Someone please help. This is horrid behavior by admins. BlatherAndBlatherscite 23:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please note that all contributions must be verifiable and that editors who are adding material may be asked for a citation to a reliable source when adding information to an article. Your contributions may be removed if you are unable to provide your sources. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information. Thanks for understanding, and please consider discussing disputes at the Talk pages instead of the administrator's noticeboard. Jkelly 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Please also try to be civil in your edit summaries. Prompt accusations just won't do. Ramallite (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
And, I do not think the three above people are admins. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 03:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Ramallite is an admin and so am I. BlatherAndBlatherscite is a troll, please ignore it. --Zero 09:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Mike Church blocked[edit]

I blocked Mike Church (talkcontribs) for making some exceedingly rude comments on his user talk page in response to another block notice. This behavior is par for the course for Mike, so I made the block a week long. If you feel that this block is too severe, please feel free to remove it, but do me the courtesy of a message on my talk page. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked and reblocked, since your block and the 24-hour one conflicted. He's now blocked for a week, as was your intent. Chick Bowen 12:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

10 000 thundering typhoons![edit]

can someone please look at 10 000 thundering typhoons (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for gaming 3RR, arbcom ruling violation on Rajput and suspected sockpuppet of Shivraj_Singh (talk · contribs)? Impumozhi got no reaction above. This editor will not change his way, edit warring has been brewing for a year, and we cannot be expected to plod through an RfAr every time he creates a new sock. dab () 10:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Bowling by IP[edit]

This IP has been warned repeatedly against blanking and vandalism, but continues to do so. On Bowling, I and another editor have reverted it 2x already this hour. Please consider action.--CTSWyneken 11:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Appears to be blocked now. Please use WP:AIV in future for such reports. - Mailer Diablo 12:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


Is User:Tawkerbot2 malfunctioning? Noticing this edit of mine, it called it "vandalism" and proceeded to blank the page Batman and my talk page User talk:Kusma. What's going on? Kusma (討論) 14:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it's been shut down. See WP:AN. Chick Bowen 16:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
IMO, noone should be using a bot to carry out reverts anyway. It's a human thing, that can be bot-alerted, but not bot-implemented reliably. -Splashtalk 16:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It does a pretty damn good job of it, good enough that Jimbo was convinced to support it. Essjay TalkContact 16:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, Curps has a pretty good idea of exactly what went wrong today, and what can be done to fix it. - TexasAndroid 16:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's doing a pretty good job, and I'm glad to see something like this finally implemented. — Omegatron 16:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Tawkerbot2_bug_fix for an analysis of the problem with Tawkerbot2... it's actually the Wikimedia software's fault, not Tawkerbot2's. Under some conditions, when the database starts acting wonky, pages display incorrectly (as either non-existent or blank, depending on whether you view them in regular mode or "edit page" mode, respectively).
Tawkerbot2 thought pages were being blanked because that's exactly what Wikipedia was showing. Note that bots usually examine pages in "edit page" mode, because then they can extract Wiki markup directly from the editing textarea instead of dealing with raw HTML source (the latter is harder to parse and subject to change at developers' whim).
There's a workaround that bots have to implement to get around this bug in the Wikimedia software. -- Curps 16:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Help, help, I'm surrounded by sockpuppets![edit]

The Christianity article has been in trouble since January. A new user, Giovanni33 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) arrived, and began to make changes that were considered too controversial to be added without consensus. When he was reverted, he reverted back. He took advantage of the fact that we didn't want to report a newcomer for 3RR violations, and kept on reverting, despite pleas and warnings. Once he even reverted 11 times in eighteen and a half hours, even though he was perfectly aware of the rule. His practice was to post a defence of his edit on the talk page, then to reinsert his edit, with "see talk page" in the edit summary, despite the objections of many other editors.

He was joined by a brand new editor, BelindaGong (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), who immediately started reverting to his versions, and arguing in favour of his edits on the talk pages. She followed him to other pages, and voted for whatever he voted for. We suspected sockpuppetry. MikaM (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and Kecik (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) continued this practice — brand new editors who reverted to Giovanni's version, and voted for whatever he voted for, following him to lots of different articles. All four editors violated 3RR greatly over and above a possible accidental slip into four reverts. They were not reported at first as they were new. When they continued to revert after repeated warnings, they were reported. All four have been blocked, Giovanni, most frequently.

A checkuser found no evidence of sockpuppetry with MikaM and Kecik, although we still suspect there is a connection, even if they have different IP addresses, as they seem to have no purpose on Wikipedia other than to revert to Giovanni's version, and to give an appearance of consensus for his version on talk pages. In particular, MikaM uses the same language style. The checkuser established that Giovanni33 = BelindaGong. They were both blocked for 24 hours, as they had taken more than three reverts between them. The block was later increased to 48 hours. Giovanni later claimed that Belinda was his wife, "and therefore not a sockpuppet", even though they had actively pretended (in their messages to each other) not to know each other.

While Giovanni was "serving his block", another "brand new" user, Freethinker99 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) appeared. He came straight to the Christianity talk page, said he was new, but had read the talk page and agreed with Giovanni. He then reverted to Giovanni's version. Then Giovanni answered a question which had been posted to his talk page, forgetting that he was logged on as Freethinker.[2] He changed it immediately,[3] but it was too late, as we had already seen it. He then claimed that he just happened to be at Freethinker's house, and was showing him how to edit Wikipedia, and that Freethinker had allowed him to answer a question on his talk page, from Freethinker's computer. The "Freethinker99" account was blocked, though not indefinitely. (The "BelindaGong" account was also not blocked indefinitely.)

This evening, yet another "brand new" editor, RTS (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) appeared on the Christianity page, and reverted to something which Giovanni had inserted, without consensus, on Tuesday, and which had been reverted by another user. (This was his third edit; his first two were to his user and talk pages.) He then, in Giovanni's style, defended it on the talk page, and reverted back, again, and again, and again. I warned him, before he had gone over the three reverts, although I was convinced he was a sockpuppet and didn't need to be told of the rules. I warned him again, rather than reporting him, after he had violated 3RR. I explained the rules fully, e.g. about partial reverts, etc. He just kept on reverting, in the style of Giovanni/Belinda. When he had reached seven reverts, I made a hasty report to WP:AN/3RR, without diffs, as I was going to dinner. He was blocked by another administrator for 3 hours, just to stop him for the moment; that gave me time to gather the evidence for the diffs, which I did.

Then, just as I was beginning to relax, NPOV77 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) reverted to RTS's (Giovanni's) version. I looked at his contributions, and saw that he also started today, and that this revert was his third edit, the first two being to his user and talk pages. I immediately blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. I had refrained from blocking BelindaGong, Freethinker99, and RTS when they arrived, because I was involved in that article, even though there was every indication of sockpuppetry. However, I know that admins do block obvious sockpuppets to pages they edit themselves — I've seen it happening for example with AD/CE wars — and there are just too many "brand new" users who appear, revert to Giovanni's version, argue for his version on the talk page, and otherwise show familiarity with Wikipedia. This is the first time I've ever blocked anyone from an article I was involved with, other than pure vandals, and if an admin undoes my block, I will accept that, and will not in anyway consider it to be "wheelwarring". My block was just a quick reaction to the beginning of another war.

I'd like some feedback, advice, and if possible, some active intervention. If I was wrong to block NPOV77, I will accept that meekly! I don't actually approve of IAR, but am not sure to what extent the "don't-block-someone-you're-in-dispute-with" policy applies when, yet again an obvious sockpuppet turns up after another one has been blocked. I think my quick reaction was partly a result of all the trouble I've had simply because I didn't block Belinda, Freethinker, and RTS on sight. If other admins say I was wrong, I promise I won't get belligerent. And I won't wheelwar. Thanks. AnnH 22:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ann, I've semi-protected the page in case any others turn up. I'd say you were right to block given how obvious the sockpuppetry was. I'll keep the page on my watchlist and I'll help you if any more of them arrive. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My (non-admin) opinion: Let's suppose for the sake of argument that all of these new users, as well as Giovanni, are telling the truth and are not sockpuppets which is utter bullshit, but bear with me for a second. By their own words, they are nevertheless clearly in the related category of meatpuppets and can thus be treated exactly like socks. Block 'em. PurplePlatypus 00:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Entertaining situation! I'll help out if I can. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Another (albeit non-admin) opinion: I think you were certainly in the right here. You showed some admirable restraint in not blocking the second (or third, or fourth, or however many sockpuppets there are here) sockpuppet on sight, and there's just a point where enough is enough, especially when they make it so obvious. I've actually seen posts about this situation before and I'm sorry to hear it's still ongoing. Hopefully something can be done to help you (and the Christianity article) out. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm also non admin and am often on the "other side" to Ann on debates about this page. I sometimes even agree with Giovanni33. However these "socks" were so blatant (using edit summaries etc like pros) that I think Ann did exactyt the right thing. Chaos is not good for constructive discussion and these constant edit wars are a waste of everyone's time. If someone would teach me how to easily revert to a previous version I will help out if needed. SOPHIA 12:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Well I am an Admin, and if I weren't late getting out the door this morning I'd go digging for a barnstar for forbearance and patience beyond the norm and put it on your page. You did precisely right; if they feel they have a case they can protest on their talk pages and it can be looked into more thoroughly. Would someone who has time please give this long-suffering Admin a barnstar? or I'll do it later - KillerChihuahua?!? 12:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The way I look at it, the blocks can come from the "involved" admin because, essentially, they are not blocks of new instance. If, let's say, some child were to set up 3 accounts and vote for himself/herself/itself on FAC and get blocked for that, then, when that child set up five new accounts to evade the blocks, they could each be blocked indefinitely. They're not being blocked indefinitely for new offenses, but for not serving out the original offense. Some people never figure it out. As Geogre the Wise says: Wikipedia is not the venue for negotiating ultimate truth nor the secret history of the world. They have Usenet for that. Geogre 13:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Modern Persecution of Non-Christians[edit]

I am moving this discussion here per the suggestion of Tom harrision. If these personal attacks are not repudiated, then I do want to go through all the formal dispute resolution steps, since obviously it's not stopping on its own, despite my pleading. Also, my wife has stopped contributing to Wikipeadia because she is being deny her existence as a full and separate person with equal rights to myself, not my socketpuppet. I'm willing to prove who she is, but no one is interested in the truth. Giovanni33 19:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This user was banned from Wikipedai by MusicalLinguist afte he made a single edit supporting my version after I was blocked on the basis of being accussed of being a socketpuppet. When I saw him, I was sure he would be accused of being my socketpuppet, but I was suprised he was blocked right away without a user check (so much for assusming good faith). But what really suprised me was that not only was he accused of being a socketpuppet, not only was he blocked indefinitely, but he was NOT accused of being MY socketpuppet! Guess who got blamed? Giovanni33!! They must really hate Giovanni33 to keep smearing his name like this. I guess they go after him since he has been their biggest ideological threat to the dominated Christian POV. I also noticed that my version that he supported was NOT Giovanni33's version. It's interesting that they can ignore this fact, go way in the past to dig up Giovani's history looking for dirt (repeating their version of events), in order to try to paint Giovanni33 in this negative manner, and using this as a pretext to attack others who do not toe the Christian line. About attacking Giovanni33--it's the repetition propaganda effect: keep repeating something over and over at every chance you get, and sooner or later enough people will start to believe it. Even if they really believed that NPOV77 was Giovanni33 (but not me?), I still don't see how that justified the blocked to say nothing of being banned. Is Giovanni33 currently being blocked for some reason what would mean any socketpuppet of his would likewise be blocked? Or is the problem here just one of Giovanni33 not being a Christian editor, and any editor who agrees with him must be done away with? This seems to me to be a major violation of Wiki rules and a major problem with this article. RTS 16:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
If you'll check the history, you'll see that Giovanni33 has used sockpuppets relatively recently. I am not an administrator and don't have blocking powers, but if the administrators blocked you and/or NPOV77, they had good reason. It has nothing to do with attacking anyone and everything to do with the fact that Wikipedia policy has been violated in the past and has resulted in the complete disruption of this article. Gio's POV has never been an issue...what has been an issue has been his reverts to versions with little or no consensus and the utilization of sockpuppets in attempts to get around WP:3RR. Let's keep focused. To suggest that this is "persecution" shows that you haven't the faintest notion what persecution really is. KHM03 18:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
If they did block, they had good reason? Is this more blind faith? Maybe someone can explain these good reasons since I can't think of any.Giovanni33 08:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The more things change, the more they stay the same. I've been very busy since last week and have not even logged in to check wikipedia. To my surprise, I see some similar nonsense going on in my absense. Well maybe it isn't nonsense given that it looks like my wikibreak/absense was seen as an opportunity to attack me while I was gone. How nice! I have not had enough time to see what has been goin on yet, but what I do see, I don't like. Its rather pathetic really. KMH03, why are you pushing these old lies? I don't have any socketpuppets! That is really old news, too. I won't repeat myself, again, nor should I have to, as this is rather old. Its interesting that no one wants to take me up on my offer to prove that BelindaGong is not me. I guess those who keep pushing these lies prefer to keep up the hoax so as to speculate and continue with the attempts to discredit me. I am sad to see that new users are still being attacked as well. Ill have to do some reading to see what is going on, but I was really hoping these nonsesne personal attacks against me would have stopped by now, as they did seem to calm down. I guess I was hoping for too much. Giovanni33 08:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I see that Tom harison is involved in the accusations, against me, too, this time. And, ofcourse MusicalLinguist plastered the same socketpuppet allegations against me with all her characterizations as she usually does again. No suprise, there. Now I will have to track all this down and respond, as usual. Will it ever stop? Tom, I don't know if you really believe what you claim to believe, or you are just jumping on the bandwaggon intiated by MusicalLinguist, but you are wrong. I was away and am just now am coming back to read what amounts to more personal attacks against me.
Why do you think this user is connected to me? I looked at the history of the Christianity article and my edits and his are very different. Granted, IMHO his edits are much better than what stands now (which is just back to what it was before any of my changes--all my contributions have been stripped away, it seems--and without consensus), but his edits are missing many things that I incorporated. Also, the language is different, my quotes are removed, etc. It seems to be more refined and trimmed down. Acceptable but not what I wanted. Still, just because an editor happens not to follow a traditional Christian POV, is that reason to block him, bann him, and then accuse him of being connected to me? I'd really like to see an honest explanation for this. What really puzzles me is what did he do to get banned? And by MusicalLinguist, no less? This seems a rather serious violation of standard procedure. I would like to see the theory behind this course of action.Giovanni33 08:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

They were banned for substantially violating 3RR, not for their POV. As for Belinda, we know that your situation is "complicated". Str1977 (smile back) 08:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw that with RTS--3RR vio (funny name, don't you think STR?). But, NPOV77? He appears to be banned outright by your dearest friend MusicalLinguist, and yet, I do not see the reason for that. Certainly no 3RR that I can see. Am I wrong, or do you misspeak? Also, I still don't see what any of this has to do with Belinda or me. Why need our names be continuously dragged through the mud with these (rather old) false accusations and attacks? Giovanni33 08:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was wondering about the name. It makes me suspicious of this user, who despite his only recent arrival does seem to be quite aware of the disputes on this page and also with some tactics used by some editors. RTS certainly violated the 3RR. I have never encountered NPOV77, whose name makes me suspicious too.
Where did I attack you here? Is my allusion to your "complicated situation" really an attack. But you must know best about it. Str1977 (smile back) 10:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I did not see you attacking me but clearly MusicalLinguist, Tom Harrision, and KM03 have all attacked me. Using someone in the context of a bad example is an attack. If you disagree, think about me going around and picking on something that you did once (maybe gave a wrong fact, something that makes you look bad), and then kept bringing it up as a negative example of what Str1977 did, explaining in detail all about YOU when the issue is something that has no connection to you. This is what others are doing with me still despite my protests. About the name being a partial anagram to yours, I will just assume good faith, but it does make it look fishy to me.Giovanni33 18:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Gio - I mentioned the socks because you were blocked for using sockpuppets to evade WP:3RR. I am not an administrator and have no power to block anyone, so the block was not my doing...I merely used your example to correct the user who initiated this section, who was under the mistaken impression that you were blocked for your religious beliefs, which was not the were blocked because an administrator felt you had violated WP:SOCK and WP:3RR. No lies, there...just truth (see here). KHM03 12:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, so my name is being dragged through the mud once again just because I made a good example? How considerate--even though I have asked that this stop as I consider it a form of a personal attack on my reputation. Also, your excuse that I'm only being used as an example is not quite true. Clearly, I see you and others either allude indirectly or directly that I am connected with the violatating editor. This is not harmless speculation, either. Its an underhanded attack. Lastly, you are stating things as a fact, which I know is not true. You said, "Giovanni33 has used sockpuppets relatively recently." This is a lie. My wife, who shares my IP address used her own account, and she is not a socketpuppet. You may think that I am lying, but I've offered to prove otherwise, and yet no one wants this verified. Why? So you can keep repeating the lies under the cover of ignorance and the appearance of socketpuppetry that you can keep stating as a fact, even if only to use my name as an example? Lastly, you say "recently." Not really. Giovanni33 18:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
By "recently", I meant last month...February 15, according to the block log. That's recent, in my view. I haven't muddied up your name...I simply corrected User:RTS who seemed to misunderstand the reason you were blocked. User:RTS brought up your name...not I. It could very well be that it's simply coincidental that several new users (including some proven socks) share your precise POV. If so, that's really unfortunate. But by using socks (see here to violate WP:3RR, you've honestly made it very difficult to assume good faith. I think that's the problem the administrators are having with the new users. At any rate, this is best discussed elsewhere, as it's doing very little to improve this article. KHM03 (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Nice try to wiggle out of what is happening. RTS is bringing up his suprise that user NPOV77 who favored his version was banned and accused of being me--not him. Then you state as facts your opinion about my past socketpuppets, even though it has nothing to do with this situation. So you are in effect defending the use of my name, these past incidents, and then characterizing it as a fact, instead of saying something to the effect, "yes, its terrible that Giovanni33 is still being blamed for things based on speculation and other users, when he has been a very good editor, making lots of useful contributions, and its not fair to him to keep using his mistakes when he first started as a club to beat him with.' That would have been the right way to respond. What you did was pick up the club to take some swings yourself. Thanks! Also, again, you do not tell the truth: the version that RTS and then NPOV reverted to was NOT my version, not my POV. They are different. But, I know its essential to link me to them in order to justify the attacks against me, but even this connection is not justified. But, also its wrong: any new user who does not adopt a traditional, conservative Christian POV will be essentially driven away. This harms the article and Wikipeaida.Giovanni33 18:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, as I wake up much too early, and I come across this talk page..... I have to say that I saw a clear abuse of administrator power. First off, NPOV77's first edit was not a revert, it was work on his/her user page. The first page edit was indeed a revert, which is discussed often on pages, and it is possible that the person had read it, having looked at Wikipedia for a long time before ever actually contributing. This revert was on March 5th, and the only revert by that person. Str made a revert, then Musical Linguist did, then Str did again (RTS had been adding in information that Str has been trying to remove.....) then Musical Linguist did again, then Tom Harrison made a revert, then RTS made a revert, then Musical Linguist made her third revert (accusing RTS of making 6 reverts, which I shall look into, but it seems that he was putting different text in and not actually reverting to an older copy) then RTS reverts again, then Str reverts for a third time, and then RTS reverts for what I believe to be the third time, and Tom Harrison reverts for the third time in a day, and then NPOV77 comes in and reverts, followed by Latinus reverting...... who seems to be clearly not a sockpuppet, having well over 100 edits.
So we know that if NPOV77 is a sock puppet, it is to RTS, not Giovanni. If it were Giovanni's sock puppet, the revert wouldn't be against the rules at all. Indeed, It was at 15:44, March 5, 2006 that NPOV77 created their user page and at 15:47 that the revert was made, which does look very fishy, but possible innocence. Str reverted last at 13:53, and Tom Harrison reverted at 14:36.... This would be a 1hr8min break between this revert and the last, 1hr5min between when NPOV's account was likely created and this incident. So how fast does RTS respond? He reverted within 2 minutes of Tom, 2 minutes of Musical Linguist, and 4 minutes of Str. Such a long delay all of a sudden makes it hard to place the behavioral pattern on NPOV77, though I can certainly see a possibility with RTS being a pun on Str1977 as with the 77 repeating itself.
But let us look at Sockpuppet policy... "However, simply having made few edits is not evidence of sockpuppetry on its own, and if you call a new user a sockpuppet without justification, they will probably be insulted and get a negative impression of Wikipedia."
"Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start participating in Wikipedia for the same reason, particularly in controversial areas such as articles about the conflict in the Middle East, cult figures, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Some have suggested applying the 100-edit guideline more strongly in such cases, assuming that all accounts with fewer than 100 edits are sock puppets. Generally, such beliefs have been shown not to be well founded."
"If there is doubt, a developer or checkuser user can check to see whether accounts are related. Experience has shown that on article talk pages, including polls, the linkage is usually not supported by the information available to developers, so self-restraint in making such accusations is usually the right course."
To the best of my knowledge, these precautions were not undertaken by MusicalLinguist, which makes it a very bad idea to ban an editor which may or may not be a sockpuppet. As an administrator, it would be very easy to have a checkuser see if the accounts were related. It is not illegal for a new user to have done that, even if they did know a lot. For all you know, it could have been a perfectly legitimate use of a sockpuppet by me, because you didn't check to see if the accounts were related to RTS or to me.
I suggest the utmost care in the future, and don't forget, "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting". The non-Christians have been pushed into the shadows, while str accuses NPOV to be a relativistic POV. You must incorporate their views in order to be NPOV, even if it's only mentioning that some people feel that this may be the case. There is no reason that anything controversial needs to be states as a fact. I'm still noticing a lack of citations as well, which is the one thing I suggested you get into check. Start with simple in-text citations while you get it hammered out. (Stein p. 78) (not a real citation)
KV 14:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The place to discuss and review this is the noticeboard. Keeping it brief, NPOV77 (talk · contribs) and RTS (talk · contribs) were the same person. When, using a second account, that same person reverted, that was that person's fourth revert, violating the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison Talk 15:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to contradict you, Tom, but assuming that NPOV77 = RTS, it wasn't that person's fourth revert, it was the ninth revert. RTS reverted eight times, and as soon as he was blocked, the brand-new user NPOV77 appeared and reverted to his last revert. AnnH 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Was there a user check that confirmed they were the same person? My understanding was that no such user check was done as MusicalLinguist simply blocked that person indefinitely solely based on the fact that they supported the same version of the blocked person. Maybe he was a socket of the blocked person, but how can she assume the worst and then take this drastic against against the person based on making one revert? This seems descriminatory. For instance, if any new user reverted to her version after she just reverted 3 times, would she instantly bann the new user who just reverted to her version and then accuse herself of creating a socketpuppet to evade the 3RR rule? Ofcourse not. Also, I'm still not very happy that this is being used to attack ALL editors who do not adhere to the traditional Christian POV. I see that MusicalLinguist has copied and pasted the usual attacks against all editors. At least this time she removed reference to Sophia and TheShriek, but its not fair to all the other editors, including myself.Giovanni33 18:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to clarify my position, because it may be a bit muddled... I believe that RTS probably did make NPOV77 as a sock puppet, but it is not certain, and at most a very temporary block pending on a checkuser IP check should have been in place. Simply blocking the user with only conjecture (even hearsay is absent) and not immediately taking the proper steps to make sure it isn't a mistake is something that could have the effect of preventing a NPOV view in the article, and perhaps in many other articles the user may have contributed to in the future. Certainly, I have seen a false accusation of RTS reverting, when he was putting up revised versions of new text that others simply reverted, based upon the stated objections of the reverters. It seems that there is a bit of a bias on the part of MusicalLyricist that needs special attention when she uses her administrative power in regards to the article.
KV 06:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points:

To Giovanni33:

  • Would I ban a new user who reverted to my version? I'm not sure what you mean by my version. I don't have a particular version. I have contributed very little new material to the article. Most of my edits have been grammatical, etc. or reverting a new, controversial edit which had been inserted without consensus. I have never inserted a pile of new stuff and insisted that it stay up despite the objections of others. You are the one who has been inserting entire paragraphs of new material, often inaccurate (Galileo was tortured, St Thomas Aquinas's teaching on transubstantiation was based on older, pagan religions with cannibalism), highly POV (despite Cyril's possible involvement in Hypatia's murder, he was later proclaimed a saint by the Catholic Church), and unproven but asserted (by you) as fact (Christianity grew out of "mystery religions"), plus efforts to link the evil deeds of nominal or lapsed Christians with Christianity itself (Hitler, etc.). So, no, I don't have "my own" version. I haven't taken large chunks of pro- or anti-Christian books and inserted their content into the articles. I have collaborated with the other editor, made suggestions, and done relatively little editing.
  • There were no newly-created (same month as the dispute) accounts that showed up to agree with Str1977, KHM03, Wesley, Tom harisson, me, and many others, or to revert to what you call "my" version, though, as I've said, I don't have my own version. AnnH 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The question is hypothetical, and you skirted it. But the point still stands and the answer to the rhetorical question is obvious: no, you would not ban a user who was new and reverted to your version. And, ofcourse you have a version--the one that Str1977 has. You will always revert to what he reverts to, and vote for what he votes for, etc. You even joked before that he and you are meatpuppets on his talk page once. The example you give of taking action against a user who inserts "true faith," constantly is not comparable to this situation because one is obviously a clear case of NPOV violation, which can be treated and vandalism, while the other is a legitimate content dispute that was split among editors, and it was a dispute that you were involved with. Yes, you banned outright, without even a warning indefnitely for making one revert. And he is still banned. Did you even bother to check if the IP you blocked forever is not a public IP address that will also affect others? The action is not one of an "obvious" socketpuppet. At most its a probable one, but that is just speculation, a guess. One must err on the side of caution and assume good faith when there are any room for doubt. In this case there is. Giovanni33 09:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I knew that the question was hypothetical, and I did not skirt it. I pointed out that it has not happened that a newly-registered user reverted your edits. Str1977 and I do not "always" revert to each other and vote for what the other votes for. He edits many pages that I don't go near. (I know, as I sometimes look at his contributions to see if he's on line, particularly if I've recently sent him a message.) And he votes on those pages, generally to do with history. I vote on lots of Wikipedia project pages, and a few article talk pages that he doesn't go near. So despite my little joke on his talk page (which was actually saying that I realized from some of his recent edits that he was not my sockpuppet), nobody who looked at our contributions could say that my purpose on Wikipedia is to ensure that he gets what he wants, through helping out with votes and reverts, or that his purpose on Wikipedia is to ensure that I get what I want. We share the same POV on Christianity-related articles. We both edit many articles that have nothing to do with Christianity, and we generally don't even meet each other on such articles. A look at BelindaGong's contributions or Freethinker99's, and those of the suspected sockpuppets, show that their purpose on Wikipedia was to revert to what you wanted and to vote for what you wanted.
Concerning your point about the public IP address, you don't need to worry. I didn't block the IP address indefinitely. I blocked the account indefinitely (and immediately reported it here so that any administrator who disagreed could review and if necessary undo the block). AnnH 13:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The examples you cite about my editing are cherry-picking from all the articles where I've made hundreds of edits and these examples are not representative, nor even relevant here. Also, your characterizations of even these select handful of edits are not even accurate, if if you keep repeating them, and I have to keep correcting you (it does get boring). For examples my clear stance is that Galileo was threatenend with torture, shown the torture intruments that would be used unless he renounced himself and his work. I quoted a scholar who felt that his abuse, humiliation, house arrest, and overall treatment amounted to tourture--this was an attribution, not my own POV. When this wasnt clear I changed it myself. Where I was wrong, I quickly correct myself. Yet, you omit this fact and try to collect examples where I might have made a mistake and repeat that over and over. Clearly you are trying to bias others against me. I don't appreciate that. Similarly, my clear stance is that Christiaity may have been influenced by mystery cults. Regarding the Hitler article, when I arrived it never mentioned his religion at all--yet all other leaders, such as JFK, etc. their religion is mentioned. I found this ommission odd. It's POV to suppress a well established fact, that he was a life-long professed Christian. This is not an example of tryingn to link evil deeds with Christianity. That is your characterization. From my stance its about being honest, even if if it might offend the sensitivities of some Christians. Also, I never take large chunks of any books and put them in articles. The only time I take large chucks of anything is to quote them in arguments on the talk page to provide support for my claims. I use the talk pages more than the main articles because I believe in working with others and in the power of reason and argument, and NPOV. Giovanni33 09:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The fact is, Giovanni, that you did insert into the article that Galileo was tortured, not that he was shown the instruments of torture. To say that you corrected it because it was unclear was misleading. You were reverted by another editor, and at least two editors told you that you had got your facts wrong. Regarding Hitler, you have on many occasions tried to insert things about Christian dictators, Christians carrying out massacres, as part of the Criticism of Christianity article, (especially at end of January), even though it was repeatedly pointed out that the article was not called "Criticism of Christians", and the that stuff didn't belong there, especially when it was a question of nominal Christians, lapsed Christians, etc., unless you could show that it was Christianity that made Hitler etc. carry out their atrocities. Regarding the large chunks of books, I don't mean that you insert them verbatim, but you do rely very heavily on anti-Christian literature, take what it says at face value (even inaccuracies about Galileo being tortured), and insert large sections into articles based on what you have found in those books. AnnH 13:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not attacking any editor. I am stating the verified fact that you reverted way over the three-per-day limit when you were new; that we were kind and didn't report you for several of these violations but instead patiently explained the rules and begged you to stop; that we reported you when you continued and continued and continued in full awareness of the rules; that BelindaGong appeared on Wikipedia as a new user and immediately reverted to your version, started voting for whatever you voted for, defending your version on talk pages, and going massively over the 3RR despite our initial indulgence, explanations, and pleadings; that you both pretended not to know each other, although you were asked many times; that MikaM and Kecik appeared as new users and started reverting to your version and following you to different pages to revert for you and vote for whatever you wanted; that a checkuser established a link between you and Belinda; that when you were both blocked, Freethinker registered, said he was new but agreed with you, immediately reverted to your version (several times), then accidentally answered a question in your name while logged on as you, then claimed that he did, after all, know you and that you were at his place and he had allowed you to use his computer; that RTS appeared as a brand-new user and reverted (including partial reverts) eight times, most of which reverts were to material that you had inserted last week, even if partially modified; that I sent him some messages explaining the rules rather than reporing him immediately; that as soon as he was blocked, another newly-registered account (NPOV77) appeared and reverted to his last revert. AnnH 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you don't think it's attacking me but I do, as I've stated many times. To contstantly bring up a negative account of what I may have done when I was new, even though I have stopped, and even when there is no connection to me, has the same effect as a personal attack and is harassing in nature. This is esp. true when its only your characterization of these events, colored by your bias and interpreation of the facts that you know I disagree with. Its really boring me for me have to keep defending myself, stating my version of these events, esp. when they are not relevant to anything that is happening now. I ask that you get over this obsession with my past, my wife, and my friend who I introduced here. I tire of these arguments that I see as petty and uninteresting. I'd much rather spend my time on the bussiness at hand" making the best encylopedia in history. Giovanni33 09:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid, Giovanni, that your earlier behaviour means that when new users turn up and revert to your version or vote for your preference, they will be suspected of being your sockpuppets or your meatpuppets. We weren't impressed when you said that Belinda was your wife, after the sockcheck results came through, and after you had pretended all along not to know her. Nor were we impressed when your friend (if he is a separate person) showed up and made his first article edit a revert to your version while you were blocked for edit-warring sockpuppetry. It's not an account of what you "may" have done: it's an account of what you did. And you did continue to violate 3RR, after your first block, even without sockpuppets. Str1977 and I very kindly said that we wouldn't report you ([4] and [5]). As for my obsession with your past, your wife, and your friend, most of my posting to Wikipeida have absolutely nothing to do with your history of edit warring. I don't bring it up except in response to the arrival of new suspected sockpuppets. AnnH 13:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A negative checkuser does not prove that someone is not a sockpuppet, as a single user can have access to different IP addresses. Other evidence can be used, such as your little slip up in forgetting to log off as Freethinker99, or (as in a case I remember) a user telling another user to look at his personal website, and giving the URL, then doing the same thing with another user under another name several months later, or excessive interest in the same articles combined with similarity of editing style. I don't actually expect that a checkuser would find a link between the two latest sockpuppets and you, as it seems you were away at the weekend (you've even said that), so you could have had access to an IP address that you had never used before. People who start reverting and voting as soon as they sign up are more likely to be accused of sockpuppetry. AnnH 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, you are assuming they are sockepuppets as a fact. This has not been established yet you took actions that assumed extreme prejudice. Giovanni33 09:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have never accused SOPHIA of sockpuppetry. It is true that her POV is much closer to yours than to mine, but I do not suspect people of sockpuppetry simply because they don't share the Christian POV. SOPHIA's behaviour has been completely different from yours from the start. Her husband, TheShriek, was checked because he was one of SEVERAL new users who agreed with you and voted with you. Since one of those users was found to be a sockpuppet, the checkuser request was clearly justified, and we had no way of knowing beforehand which ones we should include and which ones we should exclude. I am fully satisfied that TheShriek is not a sockpuppet, and even deleted and partially restored his user page so that the sockpuppet accusation would not appear in the history of it. AnnH 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The truth is that anyone who was not a Christian at the Christianity is given greater scrutiny; a usercheck is only one element, and that is why Sophia's husband was check out--even though he never did any reverting. All he did was stated his POV which clearly identified him as not being a fellow Christian--hence he was also targed with special interest. That is why Sophia was right to be indignant and left in protest. I'm glad she is back. You will also remember that earlier Sophia also stated that she felt ganged up on and bullied. This is also an accurate assessment of the objective atmosphere that exists for those who disagree with the dominant Christian POV. What I see that is that there is a clear tendency to be extra nice and friendly--to become friends--with those who share your POV, and you all work together to defend a certain POV, and view and treat those who don't as the "enemy." I find this type of dichotomy an unhealthy dyanamic that encourages an atmopshere of edit waring as opposed to one of collaboration.Giovanni33 09:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Giovanni, since you obviously read my talk page, as well as messages I send people, and paste them on various pages to prove a point, you have no doubt read that SOPHIA later clarified that she had expressed herself badly, and that she had been trying to say that the fact of disagreeing with several editor who could all type faster than she could was scary when she was new. See here if you need to refresh your memory. A sockpuppet tag was put on SOPHIA's husband's user page, though not by any of the Christian editors on the Christianity article, and as far as I know, that was why she was so indignant. I and Str1977 sent her several kind messages, and we both welcomed her back when she returned. I also used my admin powers to remove the sockpuppet allegation from the history of her husband's page, and I asked her to let me know if there was anything else I could do. It's convenient for you that SOPHIA made what she later called "that fateful scary quote", but the facts don't bear out your accusations. It's true that TheShriek didn't revert. But his eleventh edit on Wikipedia was a vote for something that you wanted. (Something which BelindaGong also voted for.) It's perfectly acceptable to ask for a checkuser based on a lot of new editors voting for something that a particular editor wants. And that particular editor (yourself) was shown to be using sockpuppets, or, if they really are separate people, meatpuppets.
I agree entirely that non-Christian editors have been given greater scrutiny on the Christianity article. However, that's just because in this particular instance, several non-Christian editors behaved like sockpuppets, and that such suspicions were later confirmed. That meant that on the Christianity article, we now had a main contributor (non-Christian) who was known to have used sockpuppets. That makes us extra suspicious. On the Jesus article, there is an editor User:Kdbuffalo]], who is known to have used sockpuppets, so a request was very quickly made for a check on User:Raisinman, who was editing from athe same pro-Christian POV. (The request was made much quicker than the request for a check on your socks and suspected socks, by the way.) And when the check was positive, he was banned indefinitely. It simply didn't happen on the Christianity article that lots of newly registered accounts appeared and started voting for and reverting to a pro-Christian version, so your statement is highly misleading and unfair. AnnH 13:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To King Vegita

  • You are incorrect in saying that I falsely accused RTS of reverts. A partial revert also counts, and I did make it clear when I reported him here that some of the reverts were partial ones. I also, in the interest of complete fairness, made sure that he knew that partial reverts and different reverts could also count. Giovanni has often made partial reverts, by inserting large chunks of "mystery cults" stuff, to which other editors object, and then changing a few sentences and reinserting it.
  • I and others have in the past blocked obvious sockpuppets without a checkuser. For example, a few months ago, a new user inserted "It's the true faith" several times into the Christianity article. He/she was blocked for 3RR, and then another brand new user inserted "It's the true faith", and then another, and another, and another. I and another admin were blocking as fast as we could, often after – guess what? – 'one revert, and eventually semiprotected the article. This went on for several days. I'd say we blocked dozens of them. And, for the record, I agree that Christianity is the true faith.
  • As regards my use of administrative powers in that article, my block of NPOV77 was the first instance, apart from the blocking of dozens of "true faith" sockpuppets.
  • As soon as was possible after the block of NPOV77, I reported it here for feedback, and was quite happy to accept criticism, and even the undoing of my block. I've also invited NPOV77 to try to convince me or others that he's not a sockpuppet.
  • I have seen other administrators blocking on sight when a brand new users reverts to the version of someone blocked for 3RR or sockpuppetry. I was aware all along that BelindaGong and Freethinker99 were connected to Giovanni, either as sockpuppets or as meatpuppets, and I also felt immediately that RTS was a sockpuppet, but I didn't block any of them on sight (or at all). I wasted large amounts of time patiently explaining the rules to Giovanni's suspected puppets, even though I was convinced they already knew them. I told them politely that they had violated 3RR, but that I wasn't going to report them. I begged them to stop. In fact, my reporting of Giovanni was the first 3RR report I ever made, and I had been on Wikipedia for ten months at that stage, and had often seen 3RR violated by people whose POV I opposed. There comes a stage when you just have to say, enough is enough. AnnH 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
First, I shall reply to something you said to Giovanni, but should have said to me. Sure, a negative checkuser doesn't prove that it wasnt' a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, but it does strongly limit your ability to prove that he was. Certainly, a checkuser should be done in case you could silence everything by proving they're related accounts. To outright declare someone to be a sockpuppet as an official stance, Wikipedia (in the part about tagging as specifically being) says : "Note that this should only be done if the account has been shown beyond reasonable doubt to be a sock puppet of the user by one of the following:
  • the user's own admission;
  • matching of IP addresses or similar strong technical evidence;
  • a ruling on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration."
None of these three have happened.
And even if it is a sockpuppet, it cannot be proven yet that it is RTS's sockpuppet. For example, as I have said, it could have been my sockpuppet for all you know. Should it have been, it would not have been used in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. This argument should also answer the blocking "obvious" sockpuppets without a checkuser. This was a slightly probable sockpuppet, not an obvious one.
I could also add in the Wikipedia policy "Do not call these users 'meatpuppets'; be civil."
Partial reverts do not seem to me worthy of being counted as full reverts, but I'll certainly accept that if you can show me the Wikipedia policy which states that partial reverts are counted as such.
Well, you reported it here, and I am giving you criticism. Call me a bit of a civil libertarian, but I feel that accounts should be treated with the same "innocent until proven guilty" principle available in most democratic nations. Let us be sure that it is a sockpuppet.... certainly it doesn't hurt since you have more revert power anyways.
If you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a sockpuppet, then you shouldn't follow the wrong ways that other administrators act. Administrator status is given rather liberally remember.
KV 17:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
At WP:3RR, it says, "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period."
I don't think any uninvolved person thinks that this was a "slightly probable" sockpuppet, but I'm open to correction. AnnH 13:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Benapgar disrupting intelligent design again[edit]

Benapgar (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), recently back from a 1 month "vacation" for serial NPA vios, is disrupting the intelligent design article. Finding little to no support for a content change, he launched a series of endless rebuttals to force the issue and filed an RFC, but tried to limit participation to only outsiders to the article. To avoid the usual pattern of days of talk page disruption again, I've moved the discussion to a subpage. He's taken exception to this and is now on a rampage. Someone may want to have a gentle word with him. FeloniousMonk 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page, but knowing Ben, it'll make no difference (and will probably be deleted in short order). SlimVirgin (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
He's been leaving "notes" at the RFC about editors following their comments: [6] [7] Either he's trolling us, as this would imply [8], or they're meant to discount the comments of those participating in the RFC who also contribute to the article. Either way, they're disruptive. FeloniousMonk 04:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
BTW, some recent edit summaries are dancing around the edge of WP:NPA. He's also started a poll to go with yesterday's RFC: Talk:Intelligent_design/Poll1 If he follows the usual pattern of flouting WP:POINT he'll use the polls results in another attempt to force his POV into the article. FeloniousMonk 16:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as recent disruption goes, this is fairly bizarre:

[9] FeloniousMonk 02:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#JarlaxleArtemis

This user was banned permanently. I request a clarification as to the terms under which he has been allowed to return. He has recently engaged in uncivil behavior and has stated that he refuses to follow the MoS. User talk:JarlaxleArtemis#Removing "no source" tag, User talk:JarlaxleArtemis#Header capitalization, etc. -Will Beback 03:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not recently engaged in uncivil behavior, and I have not stated that I refuse to follow the MoS. Why William is lying about this is well beyond me—I have no idea why he is. JarlaxleArtemis 04:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you did not state it, but you engaged in edit warring with multiple users at Lord Ao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the matter. You have used uncivil terms like "STFU" to other editors. And you have caused further problems with images, removing tags, and improperly using fair use images. These are all behaviors reminiscent of those which led to your previous ArbCom cases. You were permitted to return, if I recall correctly, because you promised not to engage in such behavior. If I'm wrong, please tell us what the circumstances of your return are. -Will Beback 04:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I have not engaged in edit warring on Lord Ao. The bot said "RM caps in section headers, minor fixes. using AWB" but didn't mention anything about a Manual of Style stating that as a rule. I said "stfu" to someone because he accused me of vandalism [10] and filled my talk page up with a lot of other garbage. I could have been impolite by saying "shut the fuck up," but I restrained myself. And what is this nonsense about me causing further problems with images? JarlaxleArtemis 05:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Your previous ArbCom cases have both concerned your professions of ignorance regarding policies and guidelines, plus other issues. "Requirement_to_read_policies". In this instance, you are well aware of the MOS standard of case in headings, because you complained about it [11] on your first day of editing after the unbanning. As for edit warring in an article, [12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. -Will Beback 08:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
To refresh aging memories, can someone explain how Jarlaxle found himself unbanned? Phil Sandifer 05:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As an outsider I've two comments:

  1. The first sentence of this section claimed that JarlaxleArtemis was being blocked permanently. How could he make the comment above?
  2. From my reading of the two arbitration discussions, JarlaxleArtemis doesn't deserve a permanent block. He should be given some more chances to repent. In particular, IMO the faults discussed in the second arb is less serious than that stated in the first arb. This is an evidence showing tht JarlaxleArtemis did try to behave, just not to the expected extent.

--Deryck C. 05:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There is additional info not contained in the ArbCom cases. See User:Linuxbeak/Admin stuff/JarlaxleArtemis. Also he made a series of personal attacks on a member of the Wikimedia board. It was those two incidents which shortcircuited the second ArbCom case and led to his immediate permanent banning. Subsquently he came to an agreement with User:Linuxbeak to stop his bad behavior and to apologize to those he'd offended, and Linuxbeak intervened on his behalf. Whatever agreement they made does not seem to be active, as the complaints are piling up on his talk page again. So I'd like to know what this user's current status is, and if any conditions or paroles are in place. -Will Beback 06:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The block log [19] says that he is being blocked indefinite from September to November, then was unblocked by RedWolf24, who claimed that a probation is still in action. Then he was intermittently blocked for definite short periods due to further misbehaviour, but all of them has expired already. Deryck C. 06:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is Linuxbeak's review of his offenses: [20].
Here is Linuxbeak's list of "tasks" that must be performed, which includes an indication that JarlaxleArtemis shall be on parole for a year. [21]
Here is Linuxbeak immediately after the unbanning showing concern over sock puppets: [22].
Here is a request from Linuxbeak in mid-December to write an apology: [23]
Here is JarlaxleArtemis in mid-January selectively deleting all references to his ban or any requirements:[24].
Here is user:Psychonaut stating in mid-February that the requirements are still unfufilled that were due by December 15:[25]
So, again, there appears to be a specific agreement between Linuxbeak and JarlaxleArtemis, but the terms are not clear, Linuxbeak has not been active as a mentor, and JarlaxleArtemis hasn't met his part of the bargain. Will Beback 07:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

However, from the block log, I think RedWolf24 is more likely to have an agreement with JarlaxleArtemis, because an admin usually wouldn't lift a permanent block. Deryck C. 07:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-11-14/Unbanning and mentorship, and Wikipedia:Mentorship Committee#JarlaxleArtemis. The requirements:
  • Mediation/Mentorship
  • A formal apology given to Linuxbeak, Psychonaut, Anthere, NicholasTurnbull and anyone else who he may have caused harm
  • Repair any damage caused by acts of sockpuppetry/impersonation on other Wikis
  • A probationary period for as long as his defunct ArbCom case originally had set as the penal period (one year)
Until he has completed these requirements from November, the middle two in particular, perhaps he should not be editing. I appreciate the Linuxbeak has endeavored to mentor, and has done so after a remarkable show of forgiveness on his part. However JarlaxleArtemis appears to have ignored the process. Now that we've unravelled the case, it appears to not require ArbCom clarification. I suggest we move this thread to AN. -Will Beback 07:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Per that agreement, Jarlaxle is on probation, which can be enforced by any uininvolved admin. If this is an enforcement problem, we need to get some admins to look at this. As well, he's put under mentors, who are given free reign to stop his disruption by necessary means; if the mentors have left or resigned, or forgotten him, then we need some new ones. If you think it is beyond that point, then what is probably needed is just some consensus on ANI to reban him without arbcom intervention. Dmcdevit·t 07:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Redwolf24's involvement was as a member of the WP:MENTCOM. The agreements were negotiated by Linuxbeak, and the Mentorship Committee created subsequently to provide oversight; Redwolf24 was one of the principal founders of the MentCom, and involved with most of it's cases. To my knowledge (and I was in the loop on most of what he did), he didn't have any part in Linuxbeak's negotiations. Essjay TalkContact 07:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC) This post intended to respond to Deryck Chan's comment that "RedWolf24 is more likely to have an agreement with JarlaxleArtemis," not to suggest that the assigned mentors should be the ones to handle the matter and/or that other administrators should not intervene. Essjay TalkContact 10:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Is user:Redwolf24 active currently? user:Linuxbeak has been on intermittent wikibreaks, and the other two appointed mentors have not been involved noticeably. Unless someone from the Mentcom wants to get involved then I think the admins will have to do it. Personally, I think completing his unbanning requirements should be a pre-condition for editing, but someone else can make that determination. -Will Beback 08:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't, by the way, interpret the terms of the agreement to be that only the mentors can enforce the probation. Rather, any admin can, especially with ANI consensus. Dmcdevit·t 08:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay. So our current conclusion is, somebody unblocked him, and he's back. So what's next? I can't see any proposed action here. It looks like a page of evidence more than a request for clarification. Deryck C. 08:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Per my earlier suggestion, I've moved it to AN/I. Any admin (or mediator) may respond. -Will Beback 09:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Jarlaxle is not a banned user per se. Linuxbeak took it upon himself to try to rehabilitate Jarlaxle into the Wikipedia community, and Jimbo gave it an official "ok, why not, let's see if it works." So treat Jarlaxle like any user for the moment - David Gerard 14:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No, not a banned user, but one whose ban was lifted with certain requirements, who is on parole, and who is engaging in the same behaviors that brought him to the ArbCom twice. -Will Beback 16:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't really followed recent developments concerning Jarlaxle, but I did see some of his harassment of Linuxbeak a few months ago, and I think that it was very good of Linuxbeak to welcome him back, and it's disappointing that it doesn't seem to be working out. AnnH 18:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak wrote on December 8, " The written apology that you agreed to as part of your unbanning will be due no later than December 15th at 00:00 UTC. A late submission will be allowed, but you will be banned from editing starting at December 15th with the exception of your user space." [26] We know that the apologies were never written. Is there any reason why the user should not be blocked, pursuant to his agreement? -Will Beback 19:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


I have blocked JarlaxleArtemis indefinitely because he has failed to write his written apology before December 15, 2005, as per the unbanning agreement. He may be unblocked as soon as he submits the apology, provided he's still acting reasonably. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 20:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't we frown upon demanding apologies? Phil Sandifer 05:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Quite possibly, though it was a condition of the unbanning agreement that Linuxbeak brokered. Ral315 (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a point to question against Phroziac's act. Did you re-notify Jarlaxle about the previous-made agreement on unbanning and give him another fortnight or so of deadline before you reinstated the block? It would be unfair to Jarlaxle if he wasn't blocked in December for failing to comply with the agreement, did many rational things throughout the months, and suddenly got blocked because he forgot to do something three months ago, without even giving him a prior notice. Consider my comment void if anyone can show that Jarlaxle is given a 14-day period of notification before being blocked. --Deryck C. 12:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you re-read the statement that Linuxbeak wrote on his talk page in December, you can see Jarlaxle was told that if he did not complete the requirement in a week he would be blocked until he did. That is now a three month period of notice. You can also see that he selectively deleted that notice a month later, indicating he was aware of it. Furthermore, in reviewing this case I've seen many examples of harmful behavior, witnessed by the complaints on his talk page and his edit warring on articles like Lord Ao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Drow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Even after he has completed these requirements he may be blocked or banned totally or partially on account of violating parole by edit warring, etc. Lastly, he is now questioning some details about his parole, and disputing some of the allegations about his actions. Taken together, I don't think that this editor has successfully reformed. -Will Beback 23:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Behaviour of Masonic Editors on Freemasonry Pages[edit]

There is a group of approximately a dozen editors who have prominently displayed Masonic membership logos on their user pages who are and have engaged in a pattern of widespread abuse and manipulation of Wikipedia Rules, Guidelines, and Spirit. The group refuses to allow information critical of their fraternity to appear on the Freemasonry page and related side pages. I request that Editors who admit to being members of the Freemasonry Fraternity(by their user pages or otherwise) not be permitted to edit Freemasonry related pages. Previously this same group of Editors have made arguments on Admin pages that various non-mason Editors who admitted on their user pages to being opposed to Freemasonary not be permitted to edit Freemasonry pages by blocking simply because their stated opposition to Freemasonry was a POV agenda. I ask for the same rational be applied to Freemason Editors - they have a POV agenda and they should thus be blocked from editing related pages. Thank-you for your time and consideration.40 Days of Lent 10:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

May I ask to sign me up for any community that is going to be censored on the personal grounds. This is dangerous and divisive slippery slope and this logic is aginst the spirit and policies of WP. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Before an admin spends time on this (or more comments come up), please do an RFCU on this user, as this once again appears to be a Lightbringer (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) AKA Basil Rathbone (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) clone. If so, ArbCom actually banned this user from editing Freemasonry related pages, and one should perhaps take what he has to say with a grain of salt. I will also post a request in the proper place as well. MSJapan 10:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Somebody has already posted it. MSJapan 10:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Um, Humus ... check out LL and LL2. We've already had "communities" "censored on the personal grounds", and quite rightly, too. I don't support what 40 Days of Lent (talk · contribs) has to say, but it's not utterly whacked. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Supplemental: MSJapan who I consider to be the one of the principal 'leaders' of the quasi Wiki Lodge of Freemasons who has 'taken control' of all pages on Wikipedia related to Freemasonry and quite ruthlessly deleted material critical of their Fraternity while adding propaganistic material from their fratenrity that is impossible to confirm has once again deleted a series of external links to websites critical of Freemasonry. [here] The 'consensus' he alleges that exists for this is simply half a dozen Masonic Editors supporting their pre-agreed action.40 Days of Lent 07:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Editing a redirect just to prevent moving its target over it[edit]

User:Gateman1997 has edited some redirects, including State Route 15 (California), State Route 99 (California) and State Route 130 (California), for the sole purpose of preventing their targets from being moved over them. This strikes me as extremely dickish. Can anything be done about this? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me that if someone cares enough to do that, you'll want to WP:RM the move before doing it anyway. The closing admin can move it over the redirect when that's done. --W(t) 11:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but if there's no consensus either way, this will make the difference between one location and the other. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually there appears to be a solid consensus to leave them where they are. However if you'd like to attempt to create a new consensus on those 3 articles you're welcome to do a WP:RM and see what comes of it as was suggested above. And for the record I believe it's called being proactive to support the current consensus position against unilateral moves, not being dickish.Gateman1997 20:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with the redirect editing but disagree with the move idea. In Gateman1997's defense, what is one supposed to do when you're not an admin and you can't stop SPUI's moving of like 200 pages? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

User: Dark Jedi[edit]

I'd like to report User:Dark Jedi and request that he be blocked for continuing disruption of conflict resolution at Talk:Bionicle; including personal attacks, falsifying posts with forged signatures (fake posts removed, see History page), and harassment on user talk pages. Drakhan 17:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 24 hours for being a general nuisance. Stifle 21:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Reinsertion of copyrighted material[edit]

See this history [27] of Southern Pacific 2472. Insomniac186 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) seems to be reinserting (after I left him a message suggesting he not do that) copyrighted material that both User:W.marsh and I have removed. I believe in WP:1RR, and already reverted him today on this article, so I could use a little advice as to what to do next. He has added good content to other articles (or at least it seemed that way to me)... Is reinsertion vandalism, or is this the right place to bring this? Other suggestions? I'll watch here for a while, no need to leave me a message. Thanks and happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 23:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

His latest edit to the article doesn't appear at a quick Google to be copyvio. Is it? If it is, I'd reckon that you can remove it without regard to the 3RR rule, even though it isn't specifically listed as Wikipedia:Vandalism. Ultimately, you'd have to block him, but perhaps he's gotten the message. Yes, I know about RickK, but that's a long time ago and Jimbo has made very clear that he wants us to be pretty merciless at ridding the 'pedia of copyvios. -Splashtalk 23:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it is. It's essentially the same text as he put in before except for maybe a line break or two. It is a lift from this page: [28] per Talk:Southern Pacific 2472... I'll try reverting one more time but maybe a warning from an actual admin might be a good idea (I am not an admin, as you may know) if you guys concur it's copyvio ++Lar: t/c 00:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • While the first one [29] was definently a copyvio, it looks like the later version [30] was substantially rewritten, or at least not a copyvio of [31]. So based on this, it would seem that User:Insomniac186 is editing in good faith. --W.marsh 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I was skimming too fast. I've reverted my revert to put it back. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing user's votes (User:SPUI again)[edit]

User:SPUI is removing user's votes from WP:TFD that he does not agree with here.JohnnyBGood 00:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That was wrong of him and that was wrong of you, too. -Splashtalk 00:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

User needing a quick blocking[edit]

Since I'm a party in a RfAr against User:Licorne, I'm not going to confuse things by blocking him for WP:NPA at the moment. But here's the latest exchange:

[Comments hidden. User has been rightfully blocked, so there is no need to unintentionally perpetuate such vitriol.]

If someone wants to take care of that, it would be appreciated. This user has had trouble with this before and knows the rules (see his RFA for details), though the blatant anti-Semitism is a new twist. --Fastfission 00:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • You know -- nevermind. I'll take care of it myself. Nobody is going to object. --Fastfission 01:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • And there I was making a week-long block. -Splashtalk 01:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Editor Defamation by User:Raphael1[edit]

User:Raphael1 stated that I was lying diff when I made this comment stating: Irishpunktom is the one who added the reference to Taliban.

Additionally User:Raphael1 has made bad faith requests for support, "Please help me to remove the anti-muslim propaganda on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article. User:Raphael1 " on numerous editor's pages diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, (a total of about 20).

As well he has falsely accused other editors of Wikipedia violations like he did against User:MX44 here (MX44 will surely verify this).

And he has attempted to use a false pretense (claiming WP:NPA) in requesting deletion of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons image. diff

He has vandalized the Jyllands-Posten cartoons controversy article. diff and been subsequently warned.

All of which has added up to an editor that has been quite disruptive.

What recourse does an editor like myself have against a fellow editor who defames me? Netscott 03:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is disruptive, I myself have been accused of not following consensus by this editor, but as I am (albeit a minimal) part of this dispute will not take action. NSLE (T+C) at 05:13 UTC (2006-03-14)
I will politely point the user toward Wikipedia is not censored and add a warning. Sasquatch t|c 06:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[edit]

Could someone please block this user for his constant vandalism, mainly at Christianity. Thanks, Str1977 (smile back) 09:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Administrator Jim Duffy (author)[edit]

I made a factual edit to Dr. Duffy's article based on information he had posted to his Wikipedia User page here. For whatever reason, User:Jtdirl (Dr. Jim Duffy (author) edited his own article and reversed my edit in contravention of Wikipedia principles and as recently reiterated by Jimbo Wales. - Ted Wilkes 02:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Other editors at Wikipedia rely on User:Jtdirl as he has repeatedly stated he is a historian and made assertions on various topics based on a claim to be an "academic" with a PhD degree from the National University of Ireland and that he is a published author (both history and fiction). He asserted these things as a fact for a long time on his User page as seen here. People need and have a right to know if he has lied about his credentials or not as they in fact have depended on his advice based on his asserted qualifications. As a Wikipedia Administrator, I'm certain he will want to state that he is or is not Jim Duffy (author). After all, he created the Duffy article. - Ted Wilkes 03:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

To my mind, User:Ted Wilkes is frequently gaming the system. He did this several times in the past. Most people may remember his mud-throwing campaign against arbcom member Fred Bauder. There is much evidence that he is identical with multi-hardbanned User:DW. For a summary of facts supporting this view, see [32]. Wilkes was blocked for one week by administrator Jtdirl. This kind of contribution seems to be his personal reaction. Onefortyone 04:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"Jim Duffy = jtdirl" is something Skyring was convinced of to the point of obsession, and spread over Wikipedia as far as he could - it's not actually documented in the wider world. Jtdirl emails to wikien-l as "Thom Cadden", fwiw - David Gerard 09:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

But he used to sign as Jim Duffy. Jonathunder 23:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
David Gerard, thank you for pointing out Jtdirl's use of the alias Thom Cadden because here he calls himself James Duffy and as Jonathunder says, also as Jim Duffy. Jtdirl has a record of edit warring, at times bordering on histrionics to the point where Duffy repeats that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder accused him of "historical revisionism." Here he calls other editors work "nonsense" and "garbage" and adds that: "Sometimes the low standards on Wikipedia give me the creeps." - Ted Wilkes 12:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
But that particular bit of editing he was talking about was rather poor, and I don't see how those comments at all relevant here. It's a long way from where you started this thread. Are you going through all of his edits or something? If so, for what purpose? Jonathunder 22:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

User Master101[edit]

I have indefinitely blocked Master101 (talk · contribs) for this death threat. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at this: [33] He just erased the block notice I placed on his talk page. Should it be protected? --TML1988 21:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR violator promising to return from another IP[edit]

Hey, folks. I blocked a user at (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for 3RR at Beastie Boys and Talk:Beastie Boys; he was apparently the same user who had been previously blocked at (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). (There's a link that he objects to on the Beastie Boys page.) I tried to explain the pointlessness of edit warring to him, to no avail. He's now threatening to create a script to "parse your site and erase the unwanted link every 10 mins from a different IP", and has already edited again from (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). What do we do? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 00:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I just saw that Tom harrison semiprotected the Beastie Boys page. Why didn't I think of that? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The same individual is still edit warring and violating 3RR at Talk:Beastie Boys (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Beastie Boys|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), mostly from (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). I've blocked that IP, but I fully expect the user to return from another one. The semi-protection policy says that talk pages shouldn't be semiprotected except in extreme cases. Does this qualify? —Josiah Rowe (talk