Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive96

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Community ban for Licinius[edit]

The original Licinius edited pages related to various codes of football in Australia. He aggressively and inflexibly pushed a strange POV and refused to work towards consensus. He abused and frustrated numerous good faith editors who were trying to work on the related pages (see Talk:Football/Archive 7 (Australian rules debates)). Eventually he spawned sockpuppets User:The man from OZ and User:J is me to help him with a vote at Talk:Football, and was blocked after being caught out by a checkuser request.

User then spawned numerous abusive socks. To my knowledge, the current list of socks of Licinius created solely to abuse people is: Jisme, HahaJISME, HahahaJISME, John Ignolius Magnum, Whortyfour, Revenge clone1, Who but you is popo, Yeah what and why, OKEYJisme, Popoff567, J IS ME FEELS NEGLECTED, J IS ME CONQUERS ALL, Is J is Me or are you her, Is J is her or are you me?, Collins1921, The Return OF J IS ME, Await the return, The second man in wiki, Rufus4444444 and Fucck J is me.

Update: Thanks to a checkuser by Essjay, 37 confirmed sockpuppet accounts of Licinius have been tagged as such; see Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Licinius. Snottygobble 03:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday Licinius returned to the football pages as Mr nice guy. He pushed the same strange POV in the same aggressive manner, and has stated that he has no intention of working towards consensus [1]. The responses of other editors indicates just how sick of this situation they all are.

I have blocked Mr nice guy indefinitely, subject of course to review by other administrators. He returned as Mr nice guy2 and was blocked again. Its pretty likely I'll be blocking more socks of Licinius in future. I'd appreciate some community support here. How do you all feel about imposing a "users who exhaust the community's patience" ban on this user? Snottygobble 00:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Looking through it, would not oppose an indef community block. NSLE (T+C) at 00:58 UTC (2006-05-01)
  • No objections. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this the same person that left this odd message [2] on my talk page immediately after I reverted vandalism on Ambi's talk page ([3])? I had a feeling this was part of a bigger problem. By all means block: there's no reason we have to put up with this. Antandrus (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree - I@ntalk 02:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree as well. Petros471 09:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • OK - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree...but note that this user is indefinitely blocked, so our remedy is a permanent ban, not a block. Ral315 (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support ... what exactly is the difference between a block and a ban, though? --Cyde Weys 16:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Banning policy ("A ban is not the same as a block, which is used to enforce bans but also for other purposes, such as dealing with vandalism...). Petros471 17:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that he is exhausting people's patience, but I am slightly uncomfortable with the idea of a ban. It seems to me that he has come back this time trying to make a new start, be reasonable and stick within the rules. The exhausting thing now is that he has a really twisted argument. JPD (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, objection noted. I grant that this incarnation is editing articles rather than abusing people, but I don't consider the edits an attempt to "be reasonable and stick within the rules". This user is repeatedly inserting and reverting to POV material that he knows has been rejected by the editing community numerous times. Snottygobble 23:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I basically agree with you, but I think the reason he is not going with the consensus is because he feels that the previous discussions were not valid. One of the reasons for this is because they became more discussions about his behaviour than the content. It seems to me that discussion without talk of bans etc might make the situation clearer, but maybe I am being too optimistic. JPD (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The J is me sockpuppet has blanked his talk page in an effort to attract attention here and make people notice what he has to say. He says that he is willing to reform and apologises for his actions and wants back. I would be willing to agree on a trial period as long as he ID's all the sockpuppets. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am prepared to withdraw my request for a ban and I will not oppose the unblocking of the IP. Essjay did a checkuser and populated Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Licinius with 37 accounts, many of which I did not know about. I imagine Essjay has identified all of them, so there would be no point in asking J is me to do the same. Snottygobble 00:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I have brought this proposal to the attention of Essjay (blocker of the IP), Ambi, Grant65 and TangoTango (all victims of Licinius' attacks). Snottygobble 00:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
No objection on this front. Ambi 00:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I won't oppose Snottygobble's CambridgeBayWeather's proposal for a trial un-banning of J is me, to be revoked if he/she misbehaves in any way from now on. Grant65 | Talk 12:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I must insist that this is not my proposal. This is CambridgeBayWeather's proposal, and I have merely agreed not to stand in his way. Snottygobble 00:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
My apologies :-) Grant65 | Talk 07:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Essjar has no objections. Snottygobble 00:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of banned User:Iasson[edit]

This edit by KymeSnake (talk · contribs) displays the characteristic beliefs and syntax of Iasson, who has been continually attempting to impose his (solitary and unsourced) belief that Greek slavery was somehow not really slavery. Should this be noted at WP:RCU? Septentrionalis 03:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • If you think there is concrete evidence to prove as such, go ahead. Sockpuppets of banned users are blocked once discovered, and the ban timer reset. - Mailer Diablo 16:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This doesn't quite look like an obvious Iasson sock to me, though I guess it's possible. Since he's already blocked, I suppose we should see how he responds to it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • One of Iasson's trademarks was having usernames taken from List of Greek mythological figures. KymeSnake isn't exactly on that list, making me think it's just another POV warrior. A CheckUser should clear that up. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Henry Flower[edit]

User:Henry Flower repeatedly deleted the NPA tag from his talkpage following his personal attack with absolutely no explanations.--Bonafide.hustla 06:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So..? Sorry, I don't understand what you're doing, Bonafide.hustla. The "personal attack" is highly dubious. Since you link, on Henry Flower's page, to a whole conversation, rather than give a diff, I'm not even sure which bit is supposed to be a personal attack. The NPA tag is intended to be used for very clear cases only. Please don't add frivolous tags to people's userpages. Also, your tag has no greater authority than if you'd written something in your own voice; Henry Flower is perfectly entitled to remove either kind from his page. Don't edit war to keep your posts on somebody else's page, unless you want to get blocked. Also, why exactly do you care if he removes it? You put it there for him to read, didn't you? See, his removal of it shows he has read it. You should be pleased. And you shouldn't harass people. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC).

The personal attack occured on the admin's noticeboard.--Bonafide.hustla 02:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

So give us a link. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[[4]] mocking me by saying ROFL...and other random language that I couldn't understand [[5]] claiming "This user should put his own house in order."

Please do not edit war over the insertion of a notice concerning a personal attack which seemingly dosen't exist. El_C 05:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
On another note: Bonafide.hustla, it's important to use permanent diff links to point people to something somebody said, because the other kind of links are only good when they're fresh. Anybody trying to follow yours here will quickly run up against links that have gone bad. In RFAr evidence, you MUST use diff links. Does anybody know a page where it's explained how to make them and why it's important? How are people supposed to find out? I hate explaining it... but I'd love to be able to refer to clear instructions. Bishonen | talk 07:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC).

Please explain why it is not personal attack. This user said "I would do better to put my own house in order." while i was negotiating another issue, when i tried to negotiate on his talkpage, i was scoffed at and disrespected. he even said rofl (rolling on floor laughin) if this is not personal attack, I don't know what is. The accusation by user Elc seems to be out of personal vendetta due to his support to "communist" hero Che Guvera (see his userpage) and my accusation of communist propaganda on jiang's talkpage.--Bonafide.hustla 05:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If ROFL is not a personal attack, you don't know what is? I reckon you don't. Go away. You're a vexatious litigant and a pest. You are hereby banned from posting on WP:AN and WP:AN/I. "Banned" means "Don't post here again or you'll get blocked." Bishonen | talk 05:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC).
P.S. I've told BFH that it's OK for him to post here once more in case he wants to try to make the community rescind my softban by undertaking to post, er, more responsibly, so please nobody block him if there's one more post. Bishonen | talk 07:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC).

KarateKid7, TheMadTim[edit]

I responded to a 3RR report at WP:AN3 between two seeming revert warriors (KarateKid7 (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log), TheMadTim (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log)) assuming bad faith. I blocked them both for 24 hours. Tawker undid my block on KarateKid7 a few hours later, which is fine by me, as I was planning to anyway per an email conversation I had with him. However, soon, a new factor entered the mix: TheMADTim (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log). I noticed this guy blank KarateKid7's UT page, and I gave him an indef block on the spot. Mackensen (talkcontribs) was kind enough to perform a checkuser on the gentleman in question. "Likely that TheMADTim is a sockpuppet of KarateKid7. Mackensen (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)" I'm now not sure what to do with the situation, and I ask for a community decision here. It would seem that KarateKid7 registered TheMADTim to defame TheMadTim, and here I was assuming good faith with him and actually favored his take of the content dispute (which both parties insisted was simple vandalism and not a dispute). Any opinions out there? —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, lovely. Now I've uncovered Karatekid7 (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log), permablocked 14:44, March 21, 2006. LowerUppercase's first edit? 22:01, March 22, 2006. I'm leaning to a permablock as a sockpuppet of a permablocked user. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, lowercase's first edit was May 2 2005... did you mean uppercase's first edit? I'd leave them alone unless you got a positive checkuser, and from my casual run through their contributions they aren't nessecarily editing the same articles. LOL just checked the block log for karatekid7, and he's indefblocked by Gator. Yah, wipe him out.--Syrthiss 02:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Yup, end of story. KimvdLinde 03:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Chaps, is there any chance that you can block user:KabadiKid7 as well? They're pretty much an obvious sockpuppet. --TheMadTim 16:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I am KarateKid7 and Karatekid7, I was not TheMADTim, this has never been verified and was described as likely, I dispute this. My initial account Karatekid7 was unfairly blocked by user:jtdirl. I was then later permanantly blocked by user:gator1 for removing the details of my previous block from my user page this admin has since disappeared. I then had KarateKid7| blocked for being a sockpuppet of Karatekid7 personally I do not think this was sockpuppeting as I thought it was very obvious and the account was created after my ban. I also considered the blocks to be unjust and did not know how to question them as my user page was blocked for Karatekid7. I think my edits show that whilst some of my edits may be considered controversial by some, I am no vandal, and I have reverted a good amount of vandalism myself. Simple fact is I could wait a week, register a new account with an unsimilar name and not be banned as a sockpuppet, so why ban me for being honest? --TheKarateKid7 01:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Current sock puppet listing : [6] Previous sock puppet usercheck : [7] recent 3RR : [8] another recent 3RR : [9] - multiple 3RR violation, uncivility, and sock puppet useage to evade two permablocks + 3RR. Karatekid7 is already permabanned. John79 is also permabanned. 221.114.194.14 13:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see newer case at [10]. --TheKarateKid7 19:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Developing Aucaman fiasco[edit]

I'm on the verge of thinking I should really withdraw from further discussion on the matter. I'm incredibly disgusted with the behavior of several editors who have acted, IMHO, grossly inappropriately, either by their "wrong" actions or by their defense of those actions. The discussion is ongoing at User talk:Aucaman. I'm feeling very close to wanting to pass out UN sanctions, so I think I should probably just sit down and shut up for a while. The actions [rollbacks on a number of users' talk pages] were admittedly performed without the rollerbacker's bothering to spend a moment's consideration figuring out whether or not doing so were warranted, on the sole basis that Aucaman is under an arbcom injunction to watch his use of reverts [which, as it happens, hello, has nothing to do with leaving messages on other users' talk pages]. I'm disgusted, nay appalled, that this activity has been supported by 2 other users, at least one of whom is a fellow admin [for whom I voted! :-\] ... If someone with a level head and the interest and time to actually investigate what's going on instead of pronouncing uninformed snap judgments could take the time, please comment on Aucaman's talkpage. Tomertalk 07:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think it's worth spending a lot of energy on this now. The deed is done anyway - whether or not one considers A's talkpage postings as spamming, or whether or not one considers reverting them to have been appropriate, the messages will have reached their addressees by now (and they would have done so even if they had remained deleted). Any of the users involved should now be free to decide whether they want that message to stay on their talkpage or not. Lukas (T.|@) 13:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
For the record, there are few situations where copy/pasting the same instructions about a page to two dozen other users is NOT considered talk page spamming, regardless of intentions. --InShaneee 16:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, as of this writing, InShaneee has clearly not read any of what's transpired in this incident, as is transparently, nay painfully, obvious by looking at his ongoing equivocation on Aucaman's talkpage. Tomertalk 01:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Tomer and myself are having a bit of a disagreement about how to handle this situation, and it is clear, nay, painfully obvious that he'd rather be antagonistic then attempt to reach any sort of consensus. I certainly hope others here will take a look at what has transpired in put in their two cents. --InShaneee 02:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin blocking talk page[edit]

Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs) just blocked a talk page with the comment: (Protected Talk:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities: Briefly protecting so I can ACTUALLY GET A GODDAMN EDIT THROUGH [11]. Which means that others can not get their edit through. Can someone deal with this. KimvdLinde 06:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) He unprotected a few min. after. However, that was a pretty rude summary, especially for an admin. Not much actual harm done. Still, such impatient, careless and recklfull use of admin abilities should be avoided though.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 06:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
He's unblocked, so things seem to be O.K. Snoutwood (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Unprotected, you mean ;). If traffic was really that high, and he really needed to get that edit through, I'd say it's fair, especially if he's using a weak internet connection, or browser, that doesn't move fast enough to avoid ECs. At least he's unprotected it, so that's fair IMO. NSLE (T+C) at 06:38 UTC (2006-05-04)
Correct on all counts! Hearty agreement: looking at the history I can see why he did so. Snoutwood (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I've done this before. The summary I used was "one second, please!". Everyone thanked me, though, because it helped all of em. El_C 06:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe not expressedly thanked me, but deep down inside... No, no need to thank me! El_C 06:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I would say, this means that admins have more rights than non-admins because I would be unable to do so. And as I work from a dial in, it was obnoxious. But things are resolved now. KimvdLinde 07:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Admins can do a lot of things that the normal user can't: deleting pages, for instance. Isopropyl 07:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and as far as I understand, they have those for usage towards the community, not for their own easiness of editing or other personal motivations. Or maybe I read the RfA wrong when some people get rejected. KimvdLinde 07:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I'm sorry for my above post, I feel like an eejit. I wish I'd said something else... sorry again. Snoutwood (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
What the heck is this? There isn't any question: he misused protection. Why is everyone saying, "Well, he unprotected, so that's alright?" Sheesh. That's not what protection is for. It's what {{inuse}} is for. For years administrators have edited busy pages. For years they haven't resorted to protection to do it. Geogre 09:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I too find this shocking. Note that the edit Phil wanted to get through wasn't some kind of sysop intervention or meta message that everybody needed to get as soon as possible. It wasn't a message that he was about to protect the article, block contributors, issue a general 3RR warning, or anything like that. It was perfectly "normal editor" editing, in the form of several argumentative replies in the ongoing content debate, the same as everybody else. To then use sysop powers to make a special window not available to others when the editing is hot and fast, that's just ... bad. I don't see how it can be defended. Admins aren't supposed to be a privileged caste. Bishonen | talk 10:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC).
Oh good, we haven't all gone insane. Special powers are for helping the community in special ways. Using them to make posting on talk pages easier for yourself and making it temporarily impossible for everyone else is not justifiable. It doesn't matter that he unprotected shortly after, because users were still inconvenienced temporarily - the very reason he applied protection, the high traffic on the page, is the very reason why he should not have.
The ability of admins using their powers to benefit themselves pretty much ends with being able to delete your own user subpages, in my view. Phil Sandifer misused protection. It's not a big incident, so let's not make a big deal out of it, but please, let's not see any more of it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
It is with pain in my heart that I have to agree with Bishonen and Geogre. I know Phil to be a decent, reliable and responsible admin. However, I disagree with his action on this talk page. His comment was that of an editor, not of an admin. In such cases, admins should not use their privileges, but act like normal editors are able to do. Wikipedia:Protection policy explicitly states: "Admin powers are not editor privileges." Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 11:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not calling for a rope and a posse. I just can't countenance it as all Ok. It's not Ok. In fact, if there were people who were complaining about Phil for other reasons, it would be evidentiary, but it's not an ArbCom case by itself. (Some of us who don't like the clerks office and their ability to expand into all fissures in power might see it as an argument, but that's a separate issue.) Geogre 10:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, while I also am strongly opposed to getting torches and pitchforks over this, this was an inappropriate use of admin powers, IMO. Let's quietly file this under "Don't Do That Again" and move on. JDoorjam Talk 13:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Bishonen | talk 15:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC).
Just to clear my conscience about the matter: You're absolutely right, I regret my above post. Sorry, I lost myself. Snoutwood (talk) 05:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Merecat posting from IP addresses to evade block[edit]

(Changed section header from 70.84.56.166 spamming talkpages like there's no tomorrow to attract a fresh set of eyes) I looked at what 70.84.56.166 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) was doing a few minutes ago and shook my head in disbelief, and disinclination to get into the hot issue of spamming talkpages (see "Controversial Afd and POV vote-stacking" above); but when I found the IP still at it a few minutes later, I blocked for three hours. Er, is there any reason nobody else blocked this character already? Are you all asleep? Should I permablock (take a look at the userpages)? Bishonen | talk 07:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

Guys..? The quip about everybody being asleep was a joke, c'mon! If somebody could help me with the mysteries of static/dynamic/open proxy/whatever with reference to this IP, I'll know what kind of block to do. Please? I don't even get any information on it from my usual reverse DNS lookup, which is the pathetic limit of my skills. Bishonen | talk 08:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC).
He was actually blocked before your first posting. I will undo the spam. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
? I don't see any other block than my own in the log as of now. Bishonen | talk 09:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC).
Have you tried "whois"? This is the command output:
# whois 70.84.56.166
[Querying whois.arin.net]
[Redirected to rwhois.theplanet.com:4321]
[Querying rwhois.theplanet.com]
[rwhois.theplanet.com]
%rwhois V-1.5:003eff:00 whois.theplanet.com (by Network Solutions, Inc. V-1.5.9.5)
network:Class-Name:network
network:ID:THEPLANET-BLK-13
network:Auth-Area:70.84.0.0/14
network:Network-Name:TPIS-BLK-70-84-56-0
network:IP-Network:70.84.56.160/27
network:IP-Network-Block:70.84.56.160 - 70.84.56.191
network:Organization-Name:Upsideout
network:Organization-City:New Rochelle
network:Organization-State:NY
network:Organization-Zip:10804
network:Organization-Country:US
network:Description-Usage:customer
network:Server-Pri:ns1.theplanet.com
network:Server-Sec:ns2.theplanet.com
network:Tech-Contact;I:abuse@theplanet.com
network:Admin-Contact;I:abuse@theplanet.com
network:Created:20041126
network:Updated:20041126
I hope it helps. Friendly Neighbour 09:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Er. Friendly Neighbour, it helps in the sense that it makes me feel somebody cares... not really in any other way, though. ;-) This stuff just isn't my bag. Bishonen | talk 09:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC).
    • I requested the block on AIV and then I saw that Bishonen had blocked it one minute earlier. IPs from The Planet seem to be in the Dallas/Ft Worth area and there is a user down there who likes to post from IPs rather than register; nicknamed the Anon Texan for lack of a better word. He is pro-Republican and it would not surprise me if he was spamming for the AfD against "Rationales to impeach...". I would be very surprised if this was one of our regulars. In any case the anon Texan is annoying but rarely is actually disruptive. I would support reapplying the block in 12-24 hour increments if he begins spamming again as well as blocking any other IP that resolves to The Planet that behaves the same way. Thatcher131 11:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Per RFCU, 70.84.56.166 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is likely merecat evading his block. I'm actually surprised that after several month of ocassional activity from the anon Texan, he would do something that would so obviously provoke a checkuser. I have requested additional confirmation of 67.15.76.187. Thatcher131 11:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • 66.98.130.204 (talk · contribs), another IP used by the anon Texan, has also stopped by today to remind Jtdirl that when he reverted two of Cyde's blocks yesterday, he forgot merecat. [12] Thatcher131 12:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Confirmed by CU that spam from Everyone's Internet is Anon Texan/Merecat. Now what? Thatcher131 12:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Well for starters, you might want to see if they can track down all accounts created from the anon texan IPs, I get the feeling that he wouldn't make it this obvious if there wasn't a replacement merecat lined up already--64.12.116.65 15:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
        • speaking of which, users Tbeatty (talk · contribs) and BlueGoose (talk · contribs) have been following him around for a while, making the same unblock requests, etc..it's not out of the realm of possibility that someone who went through so much effort might have created more than one sock at a time--152.163.100.65 01:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, Merecat doesn't really have sock puppets in the traditional sense. Assuming Rex071404 is merecat, Rex stopped editing in November, about the same time Merecat started up, Rex also had an IP he appeared from when he forgot to log in, which he acknowledged and linked the talk pages. This IP was not in Texas. I'm going out on a limb, but I think he moved to Texas around November and started a new account at that time, for whatever reason. Only this time, when he didn't log in (accidentally or on purpose) he didn't admit who he was. The last contributions by Rex look a lot like the first contributions by merecat, but the early contributions by Tbeatty and BlueGoose don't look similar, except they are all Republican-leaning. Plus, I think when Mackensen looked at the server logs he would have spotted any more socks. (When we asked him to check a couple of suspected socks of VaughanWatch, he found 30 in one go.) At this point my opinion, worth every penny you've paid me, is to pull back and see what Merecat does next. If he's learned a lesson, then live and let live. If IP accounts from The Planet or Everyone's Internet in Texas start helping him avoid 3RR penalties or double-vote, then some further short term blocks might be in order. Thatcher131 03:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Now that I read up on Rex' dismal history, I think the remedies section of his (Rex') most recent ArbComm require that a review of Merecat's edits be made to establish whether any terms of that hearing have been violated.
            • As an aside, the ability for one editor, the subject of four prior RfA's, to be permitted to distract so many from the effort of writing an encyclopedia is quite jarring. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
              • I wasn't aware of that. If you want to press the matter you may want to start a new discussion at the bottom of the page. I feel I'm being led into this by an anonymous AOL user and two anti-bush editors who have filed an RfC and RFAR that were highly stacked against him. I'm feeling over my head at this point. Thatcher131 07:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
                • Mentioning historical fact, however uncomfortable to Bush, is not equal to "anti-Bush." You disallowing facts (calling it POV), merely because they show that Bush is not the Hero you want him to be is totally against wikipedia policy. Stop calling me "anti-Bush," when you yourself have proven to be more interested in partisan comments than dealing with facts.Holland Nomen Nescio 10:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

User mikka (t) is blocking innocent registered users from editing anything in Wikipedia[edit]

It appears that I keep being unfairly blocked from editing anything in the Wikipedia with my registered user name, Art Dominique, due to illfated actions taken by mikka (t) in reference to the Wikipedia's Kven article.

The userSplash unsprotected the Kven article in question - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kven - at "22:32, 22 March 2006 Splash (unsprot: weird reason to protect and it's been long enough anywa)", after it had been sprotected by user Fred-Chess.

I now ask for the assistance of administrators in reference to the clearly unfair protecting of the Kven article, and especially in reference to the "weird" and totally unfair blocking of my editing privileges, please, for the following reasons:

Despite of many pleas for him to do so, the above mentioned user with "weird reasoning" - Fred-Chess - has not provided sources for his claims in the Wikipedia's Kven text or on its discussion page. His claims presented are not - to our knowledge - supported by known historians and/or other scientists. Instead, the views presented are contradicting those of known historians and other specialists on the related fields, as has been proven on the Kven discussion page.

On the other hand, the users opposing the views of Fred-Chess have provided their own distinguished sources on another Kven text page version and the Kven discussion page as well. However, without presenting sources of their own and without discussing their claims, Fred-Chess and mikka (t) keep reverting the Kven text into a text version by Fred-Chess, which includes his unfounded claims, not supported by science. Furthermore, the sources offered on the bottom of that text version do not agree with the views/claims presented. The given sources have been carried on from the contributes of other editors. Thus, this is a clear case of misrepresentation.

Here are just a couple of examples of the serious shortcomings of the Kven text version by Fred chessplayer ...

... [Removed by Bishonen]

Art Dominique talk, May 4, 2006 - 11:59 (Ps.: In order to be able to sign in safely and to post this message, I have had to register a new user name, Digi Wiki, because computers used to enter Wikipedia by Art Dominique talk have become automatically blocked (including discussion pages), due to the wrongful actions taken by mikka (t).)


    • See page instructions: "Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to read long diatribes." "Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content." I'm sorry, but this page is a monster anyway, you simply can not post like that. I've removed your "few examples" (=several screenfuls) of how distinguished authorities agree with your side of the Kven edit war. It's not that I want to silence you, but if you look at the rest of this page and the usual length of posts, it may tell you something. Do please put the material in your userspace and post a link to it here! Bishonen | talk 09:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC).


      • Ok. Point well received. Please, find here just a couple of examples of the serious shortcomings of the Kven text version by Fred-Chess: talk


The account of User:Art Dominique and several others are blocked for extensive sock puppetry engaged in revert wars making discussions of the article Kven impossible. See User:Mikkalai/arkven#Alphabetic list. The user was warned multiple times to discuss his significant changes in detail. Now he/she turns tables against User:Fred chessplayer (and some others), who cleaned up the article. He persisits in adding lots of unsupported and irrelevant information. For example, the section "Kven language" is totally redundant in this article (there is Kven language), not to say about dubious content. `'mikka (t) 15:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
If User:Digi Wiki wants to be taken seriously. they are strongly recommended to use a single account for communications and sign their posts in the way used in wikipedia. Otherwise you are just wasting other people's time who have to figure out what is going on with your multiple personalities. `'mikka (t) 23:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


The Kven article as well as its talk page at Talk:Kven clearly show the contrary: You yourself do not appear to have a single source or reference brought to the Kven text. If you disagree, we hereby suggest for you to show evidence of you having provided a single source for the Kven article, please. The users opposing the views sponsored by you are totally different in this respect. Their multiple sources can be found from the Kven article and its talk page.
The talk pages reveal, that prior to you taking the ill-fated blocking action now under review, you discussed the matter with User:Fred chessplayer. With him we have continued having exactly the same above problem. Despite of numerous pleas for him to provide sources for his claims, he has declined to do that. A quick look at Talk:Kven clearly shows that. This is the reason why we have come to dispute your actions. There really is no reason or bases for you to take such action ! The valid and correct information - backed by credited sources - ought to be left standing - naturally, do you not agree ? That is the only important matter here.
talk, May 5, 2006 - 04:25


User:Executor-usa unblocked[edit]

I blocked Executor-usa (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) several days ago in response to legal threats relating to OITC fraud. I have unblocked him following the deletion of the article and this exchange (E-usa SB E-usa) which satisfies me that he will not be pursuing or threatening legal action for the moment. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that User:Executor-usa is Ray C. Dam, one of the parties named in the recent OITC scandal in Fiji. If so, the WP:AUTO and WP:NOR policies should apply to his involvement with the article. I note that he's also been responsible for vandalism; personally I wouldn't have unblocked him. This user needs to have a careful eye kept on him... -- ChrisO 20:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

On the extraordinary "mandate" of Adam Carr[edit]

Moved to my userspace. El_C 20:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please limit use of the above page to the issue at hand; important querries re: iced-cream and so on should be directed to my talk page. Thanks. El_C 00:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is it you're trying to hide, El C? Are you one of those "strawberry flavour only" freaks? --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Collateral Damage from the Loyola vandal IP range block[edit]

Please visit User_talk:DCrazy#Unblock_request for information. I have contacted the Loyola administrator via email that DCrazy has provided me. I side with the user that the range block is a little extreme, and this user has made good contributions to Wikipedia. Who is for unblocking the range of IPs?--Kungfu Adam (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked. If we have the attention of their network administrator, then hopefully the problem will not recur. -- Curps 06:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Curps, the system administrator was very helpful and will do whatever can be done--Kungfu Adam (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Need to make a handoff[edit]

Could some other admin please take a look at the latest discussion at Template talk:Policy and the related page protection of {{policy}} and {{guideline}}. Preferably someone who has never edited either template or commented on the discussion. I protected these two pages due to considerable edit warring, 3RR violation (over where to hold the discussion no less), breakdown of civility, et cetera. However, it is now being claimed that I was "involved as an editor on the guideline template" because I made this uncontroversial (so far as I know) change on a completely unrelated issue two weeks ago. I also apparently protected the "wrong version" to further an opinion I didn't know I had on a debate that I had thought largely non-significant. I'm not going to remove the protection based on charges that seem to me specious, but I'd be more than happy if someone else would take this over and unprotect, reprotect, or whatever as need be. --CBDunkerson 22:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If that's all they can muster to say that you're "involved", they're drawing a very long bow. Protection doesn't seem at all out of place here, I would even leave these protected permanently based on WP:HRT. --bainer (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who *is* intimately involved in the dispute, has unprotected them. I would like to request reprotection and for comment as to whether or not someone that involved should be unprotecting things. —Locke Coletc 02:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Locke Cole is trying to bring this up in several places and it's completely unnecessary. The pages are currently stable and there appears to be no need for page protection. VoiceofAll and I have talked about the issue and agree that it's not worth going into any further. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Our latest discussion is here for anyone interested. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm bringing this up where administrators who are not involved, as you are, can presumably be made aware of the issue and do something about it since you've now resorted to abusing your sysop powers. And to be absolutely clear, Voice of All (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) said "I support the page protection, for the record." (2006-05-04 01:57:29) After which, you proceeded to unprotect the pages anyways (2006-05-04 23:03:12, 2006-05-04 23:04:05), despite your obvious close involvement and edit warring over these very pages. —Locke Coletc 03:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Stop trying to stir up trouble. CBDunkerson protected a page in circumstances where I felt he was involved as an editor. He disagreed. I unprotected. Voice of All took a look as an uninvolved admin, is keeping an eye on it, and has said he doesn't feel further comment is constructive. I agree. That's enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
You're the one stirring trouble up, I'm just pointing it out. Second, are we now subscribing to the two-wrongs-make-a-right way of doing things? (Assuming we buy the idea that CBDunkerson was wrong to protect, which I'll note so far few, if anyone, believes except you). Third, your unprotection was absolutely uncalled for given your obvious involvement; I believe it's appropriate to bring this to other administrators attention so they can verify that your actions are incorrect and biased. Finally, Voice of All already said that he agreed with the protected status of the pages. He's said nothing to date to nullify that statement. Please stop twisting what others say to your own ends. Please also stop abusing your sysop powers in disputes in which you are directly involved. Finally, please stop attributing your bad faith to me; I'm not stirring anything up by pointing out your actions. You've been uncooperative so far, I strongly urge you to stop being incivil and stop assuming bad faith in everyone who does anything you disagree with. —Locke Coletc 05:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I've protected both templates indefinitely based on WP:HRT. The templates are high visibility templates, and are used exclusively in a context where any vandalism is very dangerous. --bainer (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Monicasdude [edit]

I've blocked Monicasdude (talk · contribs) for 24 hours. He's on another PROD removal rampage. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Monicasdude deprodded twelve articles with valid and entirely civil edit summaries, except in the case of Bill Dedman where the charge of bad faith seems entirely justified as the prodding editor deleted a large chunk of text including references from the Boston Globe and the New York Times. Has the Arbcom case been finalized without anyone but you knowing about it? Thatcher131 03:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Monicasdude has deprodded probably 10 of my prods so far. One of them was today. So?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I've looked through the various recent prod removals. Two of the last 11 prod removals were counter to current policy and/or consensus. In one case, she removed a prod from a musician who clearly did not meet WP:MUSIC and in another case removed a prodded movie actor on the basis of the individual having an IMDB entry (the consensus as a matter of precedent on the AfD page seems to be that IMDB is not by itself enough to justify notability of an actor). However, many of the other prod removals were reasonable. I'm also concered about this block coming from Zoe in particular given that Zoe has had past run-ins with Monicasdude about precisely this issue. Overall, this block seems unjustified. JoshuaZ 03:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd have to agree with JoshuaZ here, I'm concerned since Zoe has made statements in the past that she feels Monicasdude is randomly removing prods, which I don't think is the case. Regardless, isn't the whole point of prod that anyone can object and remove the tag? While we may disagree with his reasoning on some of the articles, they were all completely civil and appeared to have some thought behind them. I would appreciate it if you would consider unblocking. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 03:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I also fail to see the reason for this. I looked at the deprodded articles, which included the chairman of the largest advertising agency in the U.S. (now on AfD) and a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist (the article on whom Monicasdude actually expanded substantially, but the assertion of notability was clearly there already). Monicasdude left a summary explaining the deprodding in each case. Both prodding and deprodding are legitimate parts of the process. u p p l a n d 03:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As backed up by emerging consensus here, I have unblocked because I don't think the blocking rationale was valid. Without arbcom restrictions, which there aren't right now, simply removing several PRODs does not warrant a block. --W.marsh 03:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I concur with W.marsh here- blocks for disruption are all well and good, but this block wasn't well justified. You do realize that a single reversal of an admin action makes you a wheel warrior now, though, right? ;-) Friday (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if it was seen as wheel waring... I wasn't aware that rule existed. But given the consensus above I think it was clearly the right call... I just should have talked to Zoe first. So uh, my bad. --W.marsh 01:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

User:TheKarateKid7[edit]

I am KarateKid7 and Karatekid7, I was not TheMADTim, this has never been verified and was described as likely, I dispute this. My initial account Karatekid7 was unfairly blocked imo by user:jtdirl. I was then later permanantly blocked by user:gator1 for removing the details of my previous block from my user page this admin has since disappeared. I then had KarateKid7 blocked for being a sockpuppet of Karatekid7 personally I do not think this was sockpuppeting as I thought it was very obvious and the account was created after my ban, I obviously admit that this was me. I also considered the blocks to be unjust and did not know how to question them as my user page was blocked for Karatekid7. I think my edits show that whilst some of my edits may be considered controversial by some, I am not a vandal, and I have reverted a good amount of vandalism myself. Simple fact is I could wait a week, register a new account with an unsimilar name and not be banned as a sockpuppet, so why ban me for being honest? --TheKarateKid7 02:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As the blocking admin on the sock who was acting under the advice of a couple other admins, I'm going to sit this one out, though I'm free to answer questions regarding this user. However, I don't see the harm in unblocking. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The original block of Karatekid7 (lowercase) by Gator1 seems to be over kid's posting unverified allegations of a criminal nature to an article despite repeated warnings. If he is willing to acknowledge his past mistakes and be good, I would agree with unblocking one account per AGF. Thatcher131 03:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The initial block was the one you are describing and only resulted in a short block, however it is more complex than this, as the sources were provided at the time. It is a difficult situation to explain and is in relation to the Jock Stein page, where the number of reverts or vandals(not me but people trying to put on the same information as I was, often in a crude way) is high due to the information that I was putting on the page deliberately being suppressed despite sources being provided. See the talk page on this article for details. The admin who initially blocked me I felt was possibly too friendly with one of the users in a revert war and without wanting to sound rude, would by appearance be diametrically opposed to my views. The indef block occured because I blanked my user page to hide the fact that I was blocked previously, I did this as I felt the previous block was unjust. I must also point out that this only went noticed when another user who objected to some of my edits went trolling through my posts and referred the matter of me blanking my own user page to an admin. Whilst I admit that some of my edits may be looked at as POV by some, I would disagree that they are vandalism. I would obviously say that I will not blank my user talk, and will not deliberatly vandalise. --TheKarateKid7 04:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Current sock puppet listing : [13] Previous sock puppet usercheck : [14] recent 3RR : [15] another recent 3RR : [16] - multiple 3RR violation, uncivility, and sock puppet useage to evade two permablocks + 3RR. Karatekid7 is already permabanned. John79 is also permabanned. 221.114.194.14 13:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I have a question. Gator1 blocked Karatekid7 on March 21 with an expiry time of indefinite, but I can not find where it was posted to AN/I for ratification as a community ban, and there was certainly no Arbcom ruling. Can one admin permanently ban a user withouot discussion? Thatcher131 13:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • User is also permabanned under account John79216.155.95.163 15:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Regarding the block, it looks like Karatekid7 was blocked for 48 hours in December and created John79, a rather obvious sock, that was caught and blocked the same day. No big deal, happens all the time around here. But then on March 21 Gator1 blocked him first for a week, then escalated it to indef, for reasons that I can not understand based on the record. He created KarateKid7 which operated trouble-free for a month before being blocked as a sock. I perfectly understand blocking the sockpuppets, I do not understand the March 21 indef block. In fact, the blocking policy for disruption says, in part, "However, indefinite blocks should not be used...against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits." Sometimes disruptive accounts are permabanned by Arbcom, and sometimes by "community consensus" but I see no evidence that Gator1 ever sought consensus because the indef block of Karatekid7 was not posted to AN/I. Since Gator1 has left the project there is no way for Karatekid7 to appeal directly to her. None of Karatekid7's conduct, including using socks, justifies a unilateral permanent ban. I would like to hear from some admins (and not just from an anonymous Columbian IP with an obvous agenda to keep Karatekid blocked) on what is the reason for sustaining this block. Thatcher131 15:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

216.155.95.163 thanks for your contributions, I assume you are also 212.138.47.17 and 221.114.194.14 and TheMadTim. Good investigative work, however anyone could read the evidence you have provided by simply reading my userpage. --TheKarateKid7 19:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

24.64.223.203[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination)[edit]

Morton devonshire has been advertising the AfD.[17]

I just thought I would bring this up as there is another topic above about an IP address doing the same thing. Ansell 05:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Not me. I notified people of the last Afd, not this one. Stop making stuff up. Morton devonshire 06:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Morton did recruit voters for the second AfD which was closed at 05:20 on 4 May, and was briefly bocked. He hasn't done anything wrong on the current third AfD. Thatcher131 06:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Internet pest and vandalism[edit]

I am watching a page on Wikipedia titled "Siamese Fighting Fish" and am having problems with an internet pest. This user is using a ghost IP and keeps editing the page to edit any sites that are in competition with him. I have tried to protect the page, but to no avail as I have just been informed that only administration can protect the page from vandalism. May the page be protected? The vandal has his site on the page under external links, but will not allow any competition to place their site under external links. This user also has hacked into other internet sites and may be a worry.

User now uses the name biopsy and once again has deleted the above mentioned sites.

IP address and user known as 124.168.1.209

User now uses the name biopsy and once again has deleted the above mentioned sites. I am reverting back the page.

Goldenblue 10:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The user who posted the above notice also added a "fake" protection notice to the page. I've temporarily actually protected the page to stop the edit war while the issue in investigated. Feel free to remove the protection (and the template) if you disagree or consider the issue solved. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


RESPONSE:

If you view the history of both 'Siamese Fighting Fish' & 'Discus Fish' you will see that Goldenblue is the user responsible for removing existing links. For almost, if not over 2 years, a couple of prominent sites have been listed on Wikipedia, yet a few small minded people decide they want to play musical chairs and start deleting sites, and adding links to firstly a site that does not exist (refer: www.betta-australis.com) it isnt even a valid or live site, then to another site at the expense of other sites with publically available data, whereas they keep all relevant information hidden in some secret fashion that is not in the spirit of sharing information freely.

Goldenblue also makes slanderous comments against the person who owns several of the other sites, who has nothing to do with these eidts, stating that they hack into sites etc etc. Making such a public claim is slander without proof, something which they will not have, as no website has been affected at all by the person or persons they claim against.

I would be suggesting Goldenblue be removed from using such a resource as Wikipedia, as they have shown they are interested in nothing more than to cause trouble, the history of both pages as mentioned above will prove this without anything else needed to be said.

Matthew

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Siamese_Fighting_Fish"

Categories related to Pakistan[edit]

Fast track (talk · contribs) has made a lot of apparently unilateral edits to categories relating to Pakistan. I would appreciate some help trying to unpick what should be where, some of this might require admin privs and/or a bot hence I'm asking here. Thryduulf 12:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

User ☁ has been blocked by a bot (page moves)[edit]

User:☁ has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 12:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

WOW vandal. Block correct... leaving this up for other admins to see. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 12:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Move reverted. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL, that is a sweet username. —Khoikhoi 15:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
In Firefox it appears as a heart shape, but when I first saw it in Opera... I thought there was some speck of dirt on my monitor. :-) Kimchi.sg 18:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Odd, to me it appears as a blob in both Firefox and Opera. And why are we whispering? --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I sometimes make my digressions small. :-) Kimchi.sg 03:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a cloud. Prodego talk 22:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I saw we put the image of a cloud back on his user page. I like it. I'm sure there is nothing that says you can only have the indef block template there. --waffle iron talk 23:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Userpage vandal[edit]

I have permanently blocked HansAlfons (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) - does nothing but vandalism of user pages. - Mike Rosoft 13:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't indef blocking a little extreme? He's only got four edits. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Indef blocking vandal only accounts is pretty common, but I agree in this case it could be seen as a little harsh, as the vandalism wasn't extreme (bad, but I've seen far worse). Maybe try a shorter block then indef block if continues vandalising after that? Petros471 13:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I am a fairly new admin, so I don't know exactly what is the recommended procedure. (After all, I have just witnessed a block of Cliffpolite72 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for vandalism of my user page and creation of an attack article Mike rosoft.) Feel free to reverse my block if you feel it's too harsh (after all this is why I am reporting it here), but I predict he won't come back except perhaps with a new account. - Mike Rosoft 14:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
For a new account that has only produced vandalism, an indefinite block is not an extreme measure. After all, there's no useful edit history to be preserved. If the perpetrator decides to clean up his act, he can always create a new account or request an unblock on the old one. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Aye, I was just pointing out that it could be seen as a bit harsh, and suggested another possible course of action in similar situations. The block certainly wasn't out of order, and well within the realm of admin discretion, so don't worry about it :) Petros471 16:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to chime in that I think indefinite blocking is the preferred method for dealing with new accounts that haven't done anything useful (and have done stuff that was destructive). --Cyde Weys 19:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Accounts that do nothing but vandalise articles, I warn and then give a 24 hour block just like (non-shared) IPs (the first time, that is). Accounts that do nothing but vandalise user pages get an immediate block from me as blatant sockpuppets. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

User:ChrisO's abuse of his adminship[edit]

Hi there - I would like to complain on a number of fronts about ChrisO - he has been less than helpful. When the trouble started, ihad a banner on my userpage proclaiming a particular viewpoint on a controversial moral issue. ChrisO kept deleting it, never explaining why - and he blocked me after a few re-uploads. Thankfully, User:Pgk told me of a page explaining what Wikipedia is not: many thanks to him for doing so, because now I understand what I did wrong. On a number of occasions, he has objected to me adding 'Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics/Content' stickers to various album covers. Also, after having seen a number of requests for it to be done [them here)], and going by correct English, rather than incorrect/colloquial 'American English' (which bears little resemblance to the real English language), I reversed the roles of the articles 'Train station' and 'Railway station' - they had previously had the content in 'Train station' and a redirect in 'Railway station.' For some time, my arrangement stayed, but then ChrisO, RexNL and Tawkerbot all came along and undid what I had done: why are these people not challenged? When I went to add some valid content to 'Railway station', I found that the <expletive deleted> that is ChrisO had protected it from all editing! Talk about an over-reaction... --RichardHarrold 13:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the station debate, I would suggest reviewing the Manual of Style, specifically the section entitled disputes over style issues. I don't know if your logical constitutes "substantial reason" for change. Isopropyl 14:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I've read your post and taken a look at the conflicts, and here's my opinion.
  1. I can see even without looking through the history of your talk page that ChrisO attempted to explain why the image had been deleted, and he even gave you a link to WP:NOT a week before Pgk did. In fact, it appears to me he was the most helpful of various admins who deleted it, given that some of them never posted to your talk page at all, as far as I can tell.
  2. As I understand it, album covers should not have Parental Advisory stickers because they are just that, stickers, not a part of the official album cover. In addition, there are copyright concerns related to altering copyrighted album covers and posting them in an altered state. In a case like this, the burden is on you to explain why album cover pictures on Wikipedia should have the sticker, and also to at least consider the copyright concerns.
  3. If you'd like to avoid conflict as much as possible here (as any sane person would, I think), claiming that American English is "incorrect" and "bears little resemblance to the real English language" probably isn't a very good idea. In this case, as far as I can tell, neither Train station nor Railway station is particularly more correct than the other, but again, the burden falls on the person who wants to make the change. When you repeatedly change things back to your way rather than engaging in a discussion, protection is a likely result.
Hope I was able to help.-Polotet 14:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Read a little farther up on Talk:Train station; the discussion over the article's name has been going on for quite some time, and comments on that page alone about the title date to July 2004. Slambo (Speak) 14:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
As an aside, I think that article should be at station and the current contents of station should be at station (disambiguation). As normally understood, station implies a railway station, and a qualifier is added for anything else. The qualifier of railway / railroad / train station for stations is a recent and far from universal thing as far as I can tell. Just zis Guy you know? 16:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
To be fair (and I guess this isn't really the place for this discussion) station is also used fairly often in a transportation sense for bus, gas, and subway stations, and in other senses to describe television and radio stations. I don't really think the word "station" alone is much more likely to refer to the train variety than any of those.-Polotet 16:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Yet another case where the two naming principles collide. Names of articles should be 1) at their most well known forumulation and 2) in the most accurate form. So, which do people type in more, when looking for the place the choo-choo stops, "station," "train station," or "railway station?" I think the middle one. Which is more accurate? Depends on where you are. Therefore I'd say "most common" wins. Geogre 19:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we're getting way off topic here. The issue at hand is that (a) he has repeatedly been recreating images and templates that have gone through AfD/TfD and speedy deletion, even after I've explained why he shouldn't do this (the claim that it's not been explained to him is an outright lie); (b) he's been altering Fair Use images, which presents a copyright problem which I've pointed out once (not "on a number of occasions", which is another lie) after another user raised it; and (c) he's been creating POV forks by copying and pasting the contents from one article into another (viz. train station vs railway station, again even after I've explained why this isn't a good thing to do. The message he's posted to the top of his talk page sums up his attitude: "Chris - don't even bother adding a message, because I'm not listening..." Unfortunately this is just another instance of Aggressive Clueless Newbie Syndrome. Maybe it's time to start a Do not bite the administrators page... -- ChrisO 21:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I was just lamenting a larger problem -- people not doing their redirects properly and the collision of our policies. As for the user himself, I tend to think all language bigots need to be sent to work in a soup kitchen so that they can learn that there are actual problems out there in the world. Geogre 10:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks of IP addresses?[edit]

I have just noticed that 217.180.28.173 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been indefinitely blocked. It was my opinion that we don't normally block IP addresses indefinitely (except for open proxies), so I have reduced the block to 2 months. Is there anything I have missed? Was an indefinite block warranted here? - Mike Rosoft 14:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a good example where contacting the ISP might be in order. JoshuaZ 14:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Rex071404 has violated his ArbComm permanent ban on article John Kerry.[edit]

In direct violation of a prior permanent ban on editing the John Kerry article, Rex071404 (talk · contribs), the subject of 4 prior RfA's, has taken on the sockpuppet Merecat (talk · contribs) and in that guise, has willingly violated the ban.

None of his edits to the John Kerry article's edits are disruptive. However, according to the enforcement term of the hearing, Rex has violated the term that permanently banned him from editing the article.

Accordingly, as Rex has now been the subject of four separate ArbComm hearings and has willingly sockpuppeted to violate a remedy from the last one, I don't know of any more stringent remedy available at this point, leaving only a wide-scale, permanent ban from Wikipedia. I only feel comfortable saying so because the amount of time and effort that this user has drained from the development of dozens of what are almost exclusively political articles is a detriment to the Wikipedia project as a whole. Simply dismissing violations of the remedy of the ArbComm is a disservice to the ArbComm process and the users who participated in the process.

Note: I am compiling evidence of other term violations around disruptive editing, vote stacking, etc. - but this particular violation of remedy is important and should be considered apart from any claims of disruption or POV concerns.

'Merecat's edits to the John Kerry article are here: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]

  • So even though Merecat's edits to John Kerry have not been disruptive, and even though Mackensen said "likely," not "confirmed," and even though the penalty specified by Arbcom is blocking for up to a week, you think he should be permanently banned. You wouldn't happen to be involved in any disputes with Merecat on any other articles, would you? Nahh, this is all about upholding policy. Thatcher131 16:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF. In the words of Mackensen:
"Likely that he's also Rex071404. {...} I think you're safe at this point assuming that spam from Everyone's Internet == merecat/Anon Texan/et al (and yes, this is he). Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)"' [38]
And despite the use of a sockpuppet (which is far more deceptive, destructive and indicative of bad faith than Rex just violating under his own name) I'd be okay with the minimum of a one week block per edit - meaning a ban of 20 weeks, and an extension of the permanent ban to any articles on which he has been found to be editing disruptively (again as per his standing ArbComm remedy). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
If this even smells like Rex via checkuser, I too would support an indef ban. Enough. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 17:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there was no disruption to WP because of sock puppetry. It appears that the worst abuse was trying to get other editors involved in an AfD. Certainly nothing worth a permanent ban. RyanFeisling is currently in a RfC because of a disput with merecat. While it is obvious he wnats him banned, Merecats actions do not justify it. --Tbeatty 20:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You clearly are attempting to personalize this about me - a poor foil. Rex' own conduct is solely at issue. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If he had edited the Kerry article using a sockpuppet then a permanent ban is automatic, irrespective of content. He is not allowed to so much as change the location of a full stop in the article. FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 20:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the enforcement states that if he violates the terms of the arbcom decision, he can be blocked for up to a week at a time, up to a year for multiple violations. Obviously there were multiple violations, but I don't think it's entirely fair to levy them all at once since the sockpuppetry is just now coming out. I'm going to block him for a week, and I suggest editors consider appealing to the arbcom to reopen his last case to consider the charges of circumventing the arbcom decision with sockpuppetry. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 20:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll inform the authors of the applicable RfAr's. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets used to circumvent bans, blocks and arbcom rulings automatically face indefinite blocks. FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 21:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Spammer (bots?)[edit]

I've noticed two IPs (67.82.57.203 (talk · contribs) and 71.226.173.214 (talk · contribs)) which are spamming user talk pages with links to hifriendddd.info. I am afraid there may be more. Anyone noticed these? And should the IPs be blocked? --Nlu (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

One more: 68.12.59.100 (talk · contribs). It should be noted that these IPs belong to three different cable modem providers (Comcast, Optimum, and Cox, respectively). --Nlu (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
One more: 67.168.202.174 (talk · contribs), belonging to Comcast. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
One more: 65.191.73.60 (talk · contribs), belonging to RoadRunner. --Nlu (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
One more: 69.27.67.24 (talk · contribs), belonging to Bristol, Virginia Utilities. --Nlu (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It is requested to go on the spam blacklist - meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#hifrienddd.info --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed two more: 72.192.7.3 (talk · contribs) and 70.178.171.172 (talk · contribs). —Veyklevar 02:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Animal rights[edit]

I made an edit on 30 April and gave my detailed reasons on the talkpage. Since that time I have been reverted numerous times and subject to abuse. No one, including an administrator, has addressed my reasons. Instead, I have been subject to further abuse. I'd be grateful if someone could have a look at this. Thanks. Mccready 18:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a content dispute, though the above user should probably be reminded not to comment so much on other users (and more on article content). --InShaneee 18:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I am inclined to think that Mccready's version is not only syntactically superior to that to which sundry editors are reverting but is also appropriately neutral. Notwithstanding my preference for Mccready's version, though, and irrespective of what are surely good faith attempts on his/her part to justify his/her version on the talk page, where an addition is persistently reverted, especially by more than one (otherwise competent and esteemed) editor, it is likely appropriate that, even as one believes he/she has properly discussed the issue on the talk page, he/she nevertheless discuss further. It is, I understand, exceedingly hard for one to engage in such discussion where it appears that others are content to revert without discussion, but there appear to be willing participants on the article's talk page, enough such that a consensus version might be reached and the extant edit-warring might be ended. Joe 19:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is a content dispute. The issue is also an administrator refusing to discuss content and abusing me. Mccready 19:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Mccready is a relatively new user who has made around 500 edits to articles. He's been involved in conflict with a number of editors since he began here, regularly issuing threats to people who revert his edits. He has demanded apologies from Xtra, David Cannon, Jayjg, Pecher, Moshe, and me; has threatened to report Sethe and Justen for vandalism; has threatened Seth, Nortman, Ombudsman, and me with separate RfCs (for separate issues); has complained about me, I believe, four times on AN/I; has stalked me to four articles; and has been warned by at least three admins. I have diffs if anyone wants them. Examples of his problematic editing: he changed the intro of Trigger point to: "Trigger points have no basis in science. They are claimed by medical quacks to be hyperirritable spots in skeletal muscle ..." [39] His first sentence of Chiropractic was that it's a "religion and controversial system of health care founded by the crank Daniel David Palmer." [40] And he added to Animal rights that animal-rights activists "draw the line differently" between gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, red bread mold, and the mustard family. [41] SlimVirgin (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I've looked over the article's history and the editing conflict in general (which it is just that -- a content dispute). There have been no administrator powers used that are in dispute that I can tell and no need for another administrator's intervention; just seems another installment in Mccready's grudge against SlimVirgin. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 20:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if the situation has moved beyond that. He has now threatened or demanded apologies from 11 editors that I'm aware of, and he's only been editing regularly since February. I forgot to mention that he'd had a very slight disagreement with FloNight (I mean very slight: all she did was politely disagree with him), and he not only turned up at her adminship nomination to oppose, but e-mailed several other editors he didn't know to do the same, e-mailing one of them six times apparently. [42] He does seem to be out to cause trouble, then presents himself as the victim when he succeeds. I wonder if an admin could perhaps have a word with him and keep an eye on the situation. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, regardless of the longer term implication, in the short term he's clearly violated the 3RR at Animal rights. Someone who is so eager to wikistalk others to unrelated pages and report them for 3RR violations should be especially careful about their own reverts. I've blocked him for 24 hours. Jayjg (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

User DivineShadow218 arguing.[edit]

Hello. In my opinion User:DivineShadow218 has overheated in Talk:Wii subsection 'Rename'. Users last comment "Just stating that I dont agree with your last sentance.DivineShadow218 19:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)" seems to be simply attracting 'flames'. User has not been in any way offensive before as far as I know. Debated point seems settled? but argument continues.. Could someone tell them to stop.etc. Thank you.HappyVR 19:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Odd admin behaviour (2)[edit]

Also see previous.

I was recently blocked for 100 days by PMA, who would later change it to 1 day after significant protest on my part. The only information I have gotten about this was his block summary, "POV pushing, article degredation, suspected sockpuppet." The only article edit I have made in the last week was one in the Cuba artile. Note that single article edit is over the same article as in the previous incident (see above link).

This Cuba dispute is getting out of hand, and I beg a non-political admin to come and help out. There are number of contributeres (including two very high-profile admins) using some unfortunate methods to get an anti-castro pov portrayed as npov in the Cuba article. (the issue over my block is whether or not the introduction should state "cuba is the only country in the hemisphere which is not a democracy" --Over a dozen people have suggested changing it to "not a liberal democracy" or "only single-party sate" or even discussing it later in the article!) Another individual who is currently blocked over the edit dispute is user:Cognition, although I am not fully familiar with his situation. Myciconia 22:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Dr Schlong[edit]

Can someone who knows the process please propose this for deletion? It's just some non-notable band. Dysprosia 04:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been marked for deletion, and the votes have been unanimous DELETE (I feel like Mega Man while saying that) --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 05:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I speedeleted it as a non-notable band. Next time you see a band that is not notable under WP:MUSIC guidelines, put {{db-band}} on the top of it. JDoorjam Talk 07:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Aaarrggh, NO. WP:MUSIC isn't a speedy criteria. Check that there isn't an assertion of notability. You can use CSD A7 if there isn't, otherwise AFD or PROD. Leithp 10:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Obnoxious behavior by SPUI[edit]

On the Interstate 75 article consensus has been reached that the infobox should read 'in Hialeah' for the souther terminus. User SPUI has made numerous (well over half a dozen I beleive) reverts to the article changing it back to 'near Miami', and has made abusive comments towards others who have reverted it back. TimL 01:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Also for being such a contributor for roads.. he really has a knack for screwing things up. drumguy8800 - speak 02:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
This is probably as good a time as any to mention that SPUI is once again attempting to move hundreds of pages[43], without attempting to gain consensus for the moves and despite being specifically warned not to. --phh (t/c) 02:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
SPUI can be a big bloody pain in the arse, and his methods have received some critisicm, but everytime I see someone uninvolved enter into the fray it's the same story: "Don't be a dick, but I agree with the move/smaller template/that sixteen year olds are sexy/that ducks in prams must die/etc/etc." Different day, same story here.
  1. Those page moves all look fine, and follow the naming conventions for other parenthetic disambiguators.
  2. Calling that link a "warning" is a big stretch. It was localised by definition, not a blanket "Never ever do this again."
I'd encourage this to be worked out at the lowest level possible, and also advise that this "consensus" be worked on a bit more, because what's there on the I 75 talk page isn't it.
brenneman{L} 07:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
That's hardly the point. I agree with some of what he wants to do too, but his chosen implementation method is to steamroll everyone else in order to get his way, including acting abusively to anyone who thinks that, gosh, maybe other editors should be allowed to participate in these decisions too. Believe it or not, this gets my back up just a bit—to the point where I even end up edit warring in defense of a position that I don't even agree with. I would add that when the assembled corps of administrators emits a collective yawn at SPUI's antics every time the subject comes up—as it does every few days, like clockwork—it sends a message that some people's actions and contributions are just naturally more valid than everyone else's, which is very alienating and is contrary to the principles upon which Wikipedia is supposedly founded.
Now, if you have any suggestions as to how this can be "worked out at the lowest level" other than attempting to talk about it, which hasn't worked, or mediation, which hasn't worked, or bending over backwards to give him every possible benefit of the doubt, which hasn't worked, or an RFC, which hasn't worked, I'm sure we'd all love to hear them. --phh (t/c) 16:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I second that opinion. I happen to disagree with him, but it's his attitude that really raises my ire.JohnnyBGood t c 17:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 02:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Just have to say that whilst i know almost nothing about the situation, i happened upon spuis user page by mere accident a few days back, and, this prompted me to take a close look. I don't understand how this User manages to stay here on Wikipedia. His own user page references a log of blocks and unblocks almost a full page long. Hello? Wikipedia is becoming a safe haven for what I call 2nd generation Trolls. These are the trolls that are clever enough to not technically violate enough rules to get tossed out. But they walk the thin line, intentionally, and cause grief for most of the people they come into contact with. Abusive people don't belong in a co-creative and co constructive environment. Once again i feel the need to urge; Wikipedia shouldn't be COMBAT.

by random i noticed this member for having an offensive, sexual communicating user page. I do not really believe edit/contribution as NPOV possible in this case. It is not suitable for public viewing. Akidd dublintlctr-l 13:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Password reminders[edit]

I have just received over 70 requests to mail my new password. They were made by 146.145.148.209 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (who was just serving his one-week block for vandalism). What is the correct action to do? (I have changed my password back and increased the block to one month.) - Mike Rosoft 06:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to change your password back, since it has never changed. The new password generated is stored separately and doesn't become your password until you actually use it, so you can simply ignore these mails. --pgk(talk) 06:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
He did it once (I mean, 218 times) again - it seems to be some kind of a personal revenge against me. (For now, I have just semi-protected his user page to prevent him from vandalizing it, and reset his block.) - Mike Rosoft 20:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I kept getting them from one particularly obnoxious user, so I put his email address in my email filter so I won't be seeing the emails any more. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

needless destructive edit[edit]

Bmt86

  • revert edit (twice), deleted data
  • short article Matrix_(IT)
  • has put it into hoax/afd without obvious inaccuracy.
  • user page=non-existent

Akidd dublintlctr-l 16:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a hoax -- putting back hoax template, although Bmt86 shouldn't have re-PRODded. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Bmt86 restored the discussion of that article, which says exactly nothing, and is unsigned. It is not related to the article. It does not show a will to understand policies. The term is used by different IT companies, and in mathematics. It is pointless to hoax it. It does not make sense to call removal of "discussion contribution", which is vandalism, vandalism. so-to-say "vandalizing vandalism". A Clear user page gives me edit rights. Bmt86 looks unable to check my user page forehand, or to contribute to the article in any way.

www.mathtutor.com/matrix.html Akidd dublintlctr-l 16:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

OK -- that's the first reference which is at all related to the description in the article. It's still being used as a synomyn for table, rather than the text Akidd dublin put in the article. (By the way, what's a "Clear user page". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
OK i have put it into the article. Hang on. It was there. A clear user page is one without extremist information, or, containing no information (an empty user page).
A software matrix is same (sense of meaning) as math matrix. see "array" (dictionary).
I do not see Bmt86 edits as making sense. Reports about own inability (see Matrix_(IT) discussion) do not belong here. It is allright to delete unrelated data. It is not really vandalizing vandalism. Akidd dublintlctr-l 08:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
An incorrect anon comment is not vandalism, so deleting such from an article talk page is vandalism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not see it an "incorrect anon comment", because its author basically says he does not understand much about the article. I could add this to (any) article i do not understand. This does not make sense, and it reads vandalism to me. I believed removing unrelated data, which has nothing to do with the article. Basically it gets a discussion about discussion, or a trial to push the effect button vandalism. I believe it is something different...the data was only able to produce comments like "I do not understand it too". I have seen this at other places (BBS). Akidd dublintlctr-l 08:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

TuzsuzDeliBekir block extended to indefinite[edit]

TuzsuzDeliBekir (talk · contribs) was just blocked for 48 hours for his seventh 3RR violation since January. This violation consisted of seven reverts [44]. However, there are other factors that influence my decision, tha major one being this: it came to my attention a couple of days ago that TuzsuzDeliBekir has been participating on a racist Turkish nationalist (anti-Semitic, anti-Armenian, anti-Greek) website coordination his POV warring with the banned user -Inanna- (talk · contribs) (banned for edit warring and racist attacks) and advocating "intimidation" of Khoikhoi (who she refers to as the "troublesome Jew"). The forum thread was removed when I filed a report with the site for violation of their terms of service (namely, hatred, racism, and harassment), but the full text can still be seen at User:Dmcdevit/"Wikipedia Sorunu" translation. And indeed, Inanna has been using dynamic IPs to attempt to intimidate Khoikhoi on his talk page for days now.

In response to his latest 3RR block, he left the following message [45], which included more harassment and accusations against Khoikhoi "When a Turkish editor comes and adds, then Khoi comes and sees it. Afterwards, he alerts all of his watchdogs...You can put a tag on Wikipedia like Sorry, because of Khoi, we are totally close to all turkish editors." and a promise to continue edit warring when he gets back: "Anyway, I will have a holiday then I will be back and revert the page again unless you will hear me." For relentless edit warring, using off-wiki forums for POV-coordination, racism, and harassment of other editors (which is carried out by his comments here), and even promising to keep edit warring when he gets back, I don't think he should be allowed back to Wikipedia, and I've extended the block to indefinite. Comments welcome. Dmcdevit·t 20:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked him (48 hours) last week for 3RR violation. While blocked, he circumvented it from another IP [46]. Looking on his talk page now...I'm amazed to see two 3RR violations since last week. Such behavior, along with the evidence you cite, shows major disrespect for Wikipedia policy as well as violation of WP:NPA. I concur with the block. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Note that I caught him socking back in March and gave him a warning: [47]. Mackensen (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
As I'm one of the users TuzsuzDeliBekir was revert warring with, I don't think I'm unbiased enough to comment (I'm one of what he refers to as "Khoikhoi's watchdogs"). However, I would advise deleting his userpage and deleting the photographs of himself he uploaded, for privacy reasons. This only of course if the permablock gains community consensus here or whatever the procedure is. Telex 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Good call. When we need an editor to share the "anti-Semite/anti-Armenian/anti-Greek Turk nationalist" point of view here on Wikipedia, we should find one that won't edit-war, use socks, evade blocks and harass users. Jkelly 21:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Will make a great indefinitely banned user. --Cyde Weys 23:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Concur — good precedent. --Moby 12:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan's complaint against Strothra[edit]

Vandalism warning Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. --Strothra 22:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


My edits could only be construed as attacks in that they are cuttingly cogent, and that they are directly proportional to what is being thrown at me. Nothing I have said is an attack as such in that everything I have said is born out by a rational and cogent examination of the facts.

I am admittedly rather long winded at the rfc. I think thats fair considering that half the people there were summoned there by talk page spam. It seems to be up in the air wether this is legal or illegal. My understanding is that it is illegal. If it is legal, then please forgive my anger, I'll just get to work right away on spamming every mailbox on wikipedia i think is likely to be sympathetic to my side.

Strotha should recuse from any admin actions against me as strotha is biased, and attacked me first. In particular, the only things i said that could be construed as personal attacks against him were when he first attacked my educational credentials. The fact of the matter is, Strotha is either lying out of ignorance, or lying out of intention. To assume good faith is to assume that he really did read those articles, and, still failed to understand them well enough to try to bait me with a straw man argument. Prometheuspan 22:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 22:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have changed your section heading. In the future, please note that alarmist headers such as "request other admins attention immediately" are not neccessary. Remember, this is a noticeboard. Isopropyl 22:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The edit for which I made that vandalism tag was an edit which deleted a comment I made asking the complaining user to calm down and to stop making extreme bad faith assumptions while seriously attacking the integrity of other editors. I do not add vandalism and NPA tags lightly. --Strothra 23:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 20:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC) STROTHA Said "You seem to never have even taken a grade school civics class.

You should read a book on how the U.S. federal system works - 

it's a good thing for every citizen to have at least some

familiarity with it. 
 + --Strothra 05:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 

I have not once made a personal attack against you. You, however, have made repeated personal attacks against me.

If you continue in this manner I will seek admin assistance 

against you. I was simply trying to explain to you a point of

constitutional law and procedure which you seem to not be familiar 

with but I am. I read the articles you cited. None of them are well written themselves or go in-depth into the subject matter. --Strothra 19:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC


None of them are well written themselves or go in-depth into the subject matter. Prometheuspan 20:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Two ad hominems, and I am the one that gets threats of banning and a bunch of pretty looking graphics. The only thing strotha got was a mirror and a hyperbole. If any admin has a problem with that, then they only have strotha to blame for attacking prometheuspan in the first place. You seem to have mistaken me for somebody who doesn't have a good handle on formal logic, and as somebody who is easy prey for you to manipulate with fear and threats. I'm not that person. Back off before i get really wordy about it. Prometheuspan 20:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I am attacking the integrity only at this point of merecat, and strotha. These people have demonstrated bad faith through the use of manipulation, ad hominems, and other rules violations which nobody seems responsible enough around here to ketch.

Theres an interesting note on my talk page. Somebody is now using my words to start shooting down Wikipedia. I think thats unfortunate, and i think they are taking what i am saying out of context. However, I expect people <Admins> to start listening to me, and for the manipulations and con games and rule breaking to be attended to, or i might end up saying more things that somebody might use to defame Wikipedia, and that would be unfortunate. I have the gift for fire of the tongue. I also make a good research assistant. Wikipedians gmaing the system, breaking the rules, using ad hominem attacks, and underhanded manipulations are making the system broken. This is a test of Wikipedias integrity, and I reserve the right to be the final judge. I also resent being put in the position of verbal combat in the first place, because yes, I am good at it, and no, its not fun and i don't enjoy it, and i'd rather be cooperating with people to build something; "The best encyclopedia ever." My comments as a whole are neutral; I have even in some peoples minds given the deletionists "ammo" by admiting that the article in question is biased. Let me be even more clear. The article is a factual article written in neutral language about a noteworthy topic. Period. Logically, there is no bias in the logic per sey. In order to conform to WIKIPEDIAS NPOV standards, the article still needs its MPOV defense Echo. Instead of using a pov driven mob to delete the article, fix the article. And quit giving me flack about my factual evaluations of people. If i call somebody a liar thats because they lied. If i call somebody to be acting in bad faith, its because a series of ad hominems and straw men arguments have logically demonstrated that to be fact. Strotha does do what he does lightly; strotha uses his position as a shield and then attacks. I'll assume good faith with anybody who continues to act in good faith. I'll not assume good faith for people who through their actions demonstrate that they are just republican pack psychology mob members. If that is a problem with Wikipedias admins, then Wikipedias problems are bigger than I or anyone can resolve. To some degree, Wikipedia DOES owe its fealty to THE FACTS, not the form of false consensus that is created when people operating in bad faith initiate a bad faith VFD and then vote stack. And certainly not the facts according to Strotha; who is willing to attack me to get a reaction and then play the poor innocent victim. Prometheuspan 20:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin abuse: