Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive115

Request for help

I've been trying for some while to keep a lid on a series of articles about personal rapid transit (PRT), where there is a tendency among the small community of editors to let their enthusiasm for the technology overcome what I view as the appropriate scpeticism of a technology which, after forty years, has zero installed base.

As part of this a cartoonist called Ken Avidor made some edits a while back as User:Avidor in respect of the camnpaign for PRT in his town. There was apparently some good old fashioned pork-barrel politics there. Thisgs are often heated but usually civil, however at least one editor has it in for Avidor, representing him as an extremist (in the way that creators of huge articles[1] on non-existent products are not). Apparently because I am sceptical of the claims of PRT as a widespread urban mode despite its approval byu the German government (which nonetheless never actually built it), I am a POV-pusher like Avidor. Ah well, I'm an evil rouge admin and I can take it.

However, there are a number of things in Talk:Personal rapid transit, Talk:UniModal and Talk:ULTra (PRT) which might be construed as attacks on User:Avidor, who is no longer active here. He has posted to my Talk page asking if this is reasonable, I'm inclined to think not. Since I am not considered neutral by these guys (in a he who is not for me is agin me kind of way) I'd appreciate someone having a look at the comments made about Avidor on those pages. Thanks. Just zis Guy you know? 16:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I am one of the "enthusiastic editors" of which JzG speaks. I welcome more input into this issue. A Transportation Enthusiast 18:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I skimmed the pages quickly. Mostly the conflict is about figuring out what weight to give the companies' claims regarding PRT compared with independent analyses and analyses by other parties with varying degrees of involvement. I did find a number of comments (mostly on Talk:ULTra (PRT)) that could be construed as personal in nature, such as Avidor's positions are conspiracy theories with absolutely no verifiable basis. There is a certain amount of discussion of individual editors' motives (on both sides) that doesn't have any direct bearing on article content and could probably be deleted without harming the article's development. Thatcher131 19:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do. I await with baited breath some good citations fomr the engineering journals - thus far most of it comes either from designers of never-built systems or academics engaged in acrimony. Just zis Guy you know? 22:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're looking for sources describing PRT technology, you might start with this volume that describes 8 years of US-government sponsored research from the 1970s. If that's not enough, take a look at some more recent research on the topic. There have also been fully functioning PRT prototypes built and tested in Germany, the UK, and Japan, and there are several others in active development.

Against this, the main sources of skepticism are:

1. An anonymously written unpublished article which is posted on the advocacy site of PRT's main transit competitor (light rail, which JzG favors), and which has been the subject of at least four rebuttals, and:
2. A political web site run by the aforementioned Road Kill Bill cartoonist, Ken Avidor, for whom JzG has expressed great admiration ([2][3])

JzG has balanced these two sets of sources and decided unilaterally that "skepticism is the majority view" on PRT, and used this as justification for suppressing verifiable information that runs counter to his skeptical view.

After three months, the debate rages on, as one admin has repeatedly reverted good edits from at least four different editors, based solely on the "article balance" argument. As you might imagine, things have gotten heated at times.

The debate is all there, in its full glory, if anyone is interested in reading in it. You'd better set aside about 15 hours, though. :-) A Transportation Enthusiast 01:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• I removed some comments from Talk:ULTra (PRT) that might be broadly construed as personal attacks on Avidor. Since he has not edited PRT articles since April, I think it is unfair to him to have other editors talking about him and comparing their conduct to his (especially when the comparison is negative to Avidor). (He is not mentioned in Talk:UniModal, and on Talk:Personal rapid transit he was present at the time to defend himself.) Of course, in general I think that discussing the person rather than the content of his or her edits is generally unproductive, but at least the current participants can defend themselves. Thatcher131 03:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no issue with anything you removed (and I appreciate your dispassionate assistance in this matter), but I do feel we are being a little reactionary here. When Avidor was active he regularly referred to us as "wackos", "con-artists", "cultists", and "crackpots". Nothing in what was just removed remotely approaches that. Does this have anything to do with the fact that Avidor has publicly criticized Wikipedia and has joined this forum? A Transportation Enthusiast 04:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of Avidor before today, much less his new associations. I also did not remove any comments directed to him or about him that dated to times when he was contributing and thus able to respond for himself. I just think it's poor form to make (arguably) negative comments about a user who has chosen to leave, because it forces him to either let the characterizations stand or to return against his wishes to defend himself, and I would have the same view about anyone else who has left the project. Thatcher131 04:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I didn't intend to question your motives. I was just curious if other factors were driving this. A Transportation Enthusiast 05:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No prob. It was a fair question. Thatcher131 06:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. I don't have a problem with discouraging or mediating personal attacks. However, I very much do not like the idea that my, and the rest of our, edits have been censored. I will put the comments back in.

If you want to re"delete" them, please use a strikethrough so that future readers know what the hell we were talking about. Fresheneesz 19:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

These personal attacks on me in the Wikipedia Talk pages appear on Google searches of my name. Wikipedia is supposed to be an Encyclopedia, not an attack-blog. If A.T.E and Freshenneez want to keep writing about me, I suggest they create a Wikipedia page on Ken Avidor that accurately presents my views. If they want to attack me, I suggest they get a free blog at Blogger like David Gow did [4].Avidor 04:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Then why don't you complain to Google? Wikipedia can't be responsible for what Google displays. A Transportation Enthusiast 04:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that's just silly. Google just indexes the web; unless you propose that google not index wikipedia at all, obviously wikipedia is responsible for its own content. I think anything said about Avidor while he was an active participant should remain but it is just bad manners to badmouth someone behind their back, even in real life. If Fresheneesz had allowed the comments to remain deleted, they would have disappeared from Google the next time it indexed the site. You could try archiving all the old discussions and tagging the archive page with <nofollow>; I don't know for sure that will work, but it might keep google from scanning the talk archives. Short of a mutual agreement to "censor" the old discussions (in Fresheneesz' terms) I suppose the only other option is to persuade an uninvolved admin to actually delete the comments from the history. Thatcher131 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My point was, the content had been removed (by you) and if Google still had the old content indexed then there was nothing that Wikipedia could do. I was not aware that Fresheneesz had re-inserted the comments.

But let me also make two additional points:

1. None of us could possibly know that Avidor had decided to stop editing. All we knew was that he hadn't participated in a while, and the fight that he had started was still raging between us and JzG. How were we to know he had left for good?
2. Almost everything that you removed referred to Avidor's well-documented views and claims. How is that considered a personal attack? We and JzG were debating Avidor's positions, which, by the way, are almost completely unfounded in reality. That's not a personal attack, that's stating what is verifiably true -- many of Avidor's claims have been shown to be innacurate or just plain false, including his most oft-repeated claim that PRT is nothing but a hoax, and its promoters, cultists and con-artists. Am I to be accused of hurling attacks for attacking someone's viewpoint that I'm a con-artist? A Transportation Enthusiast 14:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Jbolden1517 (talk · contribs) threatening per email.

Jbolden has threatened per email to vandalise and/or troll wikipedia. He seemed ok before, so this is very unfortunate. I've already removed him from the mediation cabal. There's not much more I can do. Be on the lookout for any unacceptable behaviour. Kim Bruning 17:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a lie. I made no such threat. I will be filling an RFC to address what's going on here but I think a rumor on IRC has gotten out of hand. jbolden1517^Talk 17:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And where can we see this email you speak of? Lapinmies 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To defy Kim is to commit a act of blasphmey. All hail Kim! ALL HAIL KIM! --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 22:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have found JBolden's mediation help very useful in the past. I ask that you give him a second chance. DavidBailey 02:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

His mediation skills aren't in question, his ability to handle power is. Ral315 (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I respect Kim Bruning as one of the few users left who manages to keep sane when all hell breaks loose, but I wonder quite how things are developing here. The last I was aware of the situation, the user in question was not quite able to grok the informal nature of the mediation cabal, and I (and several other users) suggested he go beat the mediation committee into shape. I saw no evidence to suggest he was a poor mediator at that time.

Now I see he's branded a troll and various other names under the sun, and I'm confused as to what snapped, and when. Let's all step back for a minute and remember that this is a person who's putting their patience and own sanity on the line to help resolve disputes with other users, and who now faces his peers, but is unable to proceed as would be logical for a bunch of mediators to do so. I don't want to accuse people of taking sides, but there's a hell of a lot of rapid throwing about of words here.

Let's look at this with a half-clear head. JBolden's interactions with other users sometimes leave a lot to be desired, but the same can be said of myself, a number of trusted users on Wikipedia, and even Kim himself. I'm quite convinced at this point that a lot of confusion from a lot of people is contributing to further confusion and a lot of needless upset.

If the mediation cabal is so informal, then where did you obtain the book you now appear to be lobbing? robchurch | talk 21:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Long story short, Jbolden slammed himself headlong into a wall. Sucks, I thought he was doing well up to that point. He was ok at mediation, he was less skilled as a (co-)coordinator.

I specifically delegated the mediation cabal so I have time to do other things. I kept having to pick up after jbolden-as-coordinator, and wasn't getting around to other things.

He refused to hand over to more competent people in any kind of nice way. I had no time for a lot of trouble. In the end I applied a PowerAnswer.

The mediation cabal is now in the hands of solid people, and there is even a measure of oversight over them. Kim Bruning 21:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User:HOTR

Formal complaint about this User who, startlingly, is classified as an 'administrator'! He had for over 6 months attacked UK Tories in or associated with the Conservative Monday Club. This is clearly politically motivated and he is currently nominating numerous of these Tories who have modest biographies for deletion. If such campaigns are OK on Wikipedia I think you should say on your opening page that articles deemed to be giving any merit whatsoever to traditional Tories will be deleted. 81.129.155.181 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If we promise to spank him, would you like to watch? --ajn (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Mike Garcia has used AOL IPs to vandalize my original talk page in the past. Why isn't he banned? Why do trolls, vandals and malactors receive so much respect? Do i have to assume that RickK is right about Wikipedia? JohnHeph 22:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

WiC?--205.188.116.65 02:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"JohnHeph" is, of course, Johnny the Vandal, and has been permablocked. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Not that this has anythign to do with Gregory Lauder-Frost, of course. Just zis Guy you know? 22:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Perish the thought. Bishonen | talk 22:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

Not funny, really, just a bit sad. 213.122.71.45 19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Rhadamanthus emerges from Hades for a brief moment

Folks, an AfD nomination is not part of evidence. This is very important. If a well established article is nominated, it's going to pass. We must never block and never make listing AfD's as part of evidence. The fellow in question is definitely abusive and inappropriate, but when you're blocking someone you can't take their response as evidence, either. If we start demanding that the people we block be nice in return, we're essentially asking people to apologize. We are not in power here. Administrators are not in charge. Administrators are the executive of policy, so we don't get to demand that nasty users apologize. Is HE worth blocking? Sure. Is he disruptive? Sure. I agree with moving to a second week's block, as the user is still fighting, but then go to ArbCom. Seriously. The insulted getting revenge with blocks just leads to more and it justifies every user who claims that "administrators" are the problem. Geogre 13:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"The insulted getting revenge with blocks just leads to more and it justifies every user who claims that 'administrators' are the problem." You are reading into my motives. I really don't appreciate that. I did the 1 week block BEFORE he called me a moron. I didn't do the indefinite block. Nor would I have. I'm ok with a 1 week block or an indefinite block. But assuming that I did this out of some personal vandetta is uncalled for. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Then use ArbCom. Once you begin renewing a block because he's personally unpleasant to you, you're involved in the conflict, and it is inappropriate to up the blocks. As for your motives, I'm telling you how it will assuredly look to others. Use ArbCom or hand off. It's simple, and the only reason not to do so is passion, and passion is the reason you must. Geogre 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:DR, WP:BITE. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 14:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure who you are referring to. :) Geogre isn't new. Neither am I. And actually, neither is His excellency. He has been posting under that name and another name going back to January. --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Geogre, that's nonsense. Nominating articles spuriously for AfD, when one should know better, is certainly disruptive, and just like any other act, it's something that can be used to suggest a block should occur. Responding inappropriately is similarly unacceptable. He merits a long block, and I don't think an indefinite block would be out of place. I understand there are people who have issues with authority who are out digging for things to be upset about them, but we shouldn't be afraid to do what's right for the encyclopedia just to keep such people happy. --Improv 14:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • • Nominating spuriously for an AfD can be part of a general pattern, but one when presented in evidence at ArbCom. However, I take a very strong line on this: an AfD nomination is not evidence by itself of disruption. First, it doesn't disrupt anything, as the AfD will go away automatically. Second, "spurious" is way too open to interpretation. I've seen many people want to hang people for nominating for deletion, especially during the moronic "all schools must be kept, no matter the content of the article, and all who nominate schools for deletion are trolls who should be blocked." Secondly, though, an inappropriate response is just nastiness. This user is nasty, but an indefinite block? No. That's ArbCom territory. Personal attacks being justification? Absolutely not. Finally, having the offended hand out the block is simply not done. This is not according to our procedures in any way. The advantages to handing off the block are numerous. The disadvantage is one: you don't get revenge. The long history of this user makes for a compelling ArbCom case, but not solo action. There is no divine right of admins. Insulting someone else vs. one of us is alike a hand-off to someone else for handling. Geogre 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think admins have divine right, nor do I think that insulting them is any more meaningful than anyone else. However, AfD for a topic that is completely within the bounds of an encyclopedia and clearly must be covered (unlike schools, which are contentious), purely for the reason that he does not like the content, is problem behaviour. The AfD was for the wrong reason, and was indeed spurious and a misuse of process. I think maybe the reasoning for an indefinite block would be a bit loose though (at least, provided the user has positive edits -- I have not checked), thanks to this discussion. Arbcom cases are generally reserved for when there is significant contention over a user's behaviour, or when the user has a long (and at least partly positive) history with the project. Admins should act, so much as possible, act as if they had no ego, thinking only of the good of the project. If Woohookitty was one of those insulted, then it probably would've been better if (s?)he had asked someone else to review the situation, blocking as appropriate. It is, however, inappropriate to assume that everytime admins make a judgement call, they must be on a power trip. --Improv 17:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Improv, you and I are generally in agreement, but I think that ArbCom is the proper court for very long blocks and hard bans. Short of that, we're being fickle and personal. If the argument is that ArbCom is slow and creaky, then we need to find a way to speed it, but if we unilaterally act and impose anything more than a week, we're turning Wikipedia into "I think you're bad." Because I don't trust any one, I trust everyone. I am often wrong, and so are you, but together we will be wrong much less of the time. This particular user is despicable, in my opinion. I think he probably is now irredeemable. However, I don't want any one of us making that call, as it should require many of us together to make it. If it isn't via ArbCom, it has to be via something beyond the individual administrator. I agree that admins have to act within their judgment in the interest of the project, but that judgment ought to be "Wow, this person needs to be examined by the community so that the community can speak." Traditionally, that has been via RFaR. If ArbCom is broken, we need a new fix, but when water flows around an obstruction in the stream, the result isn't always the best one. Geogre 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wish I hadn't blocked him in the first place. Didn't want or expect a brouhaha. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I think most of all it's the indefinite (which should be rare, handed out by ArbCom, and done after consensus, not before) and then the reasoning -- that he was nasty. NPA is not policy, and blocking for it should never short circuit all our rules, as it makes admins the lords and masters of the personalities on Wikipedia. We don't get to do that. Geogre 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Wrong on all counts. Admins do have the power to block people indefinitely, and they do so every day. If every single disruptive editor went before the ArbCom, we would need perhaps ten times as many arbitrators as we have now. WP:NPA is a policy, not a guideline; it's unbelievable that you, Geogre, keep claiming that it's a guideline even after it was demonstrated to you during the discussion of the previous indefinite block of His excellency that it was a policy. His excellency seems to have concluded from his previous indefinite block by Tom Harrison and the subsequent unblock by Bishonen that he has a blank check to do what he pleases; this case will only reinforce his conviction. Pecher ^Talk 17:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You are misreading a vast amount. It is not a policy in blocking. Read it again. Its policy force is, "It is our policy not to insult people." If indefinite blocks are going on every day, and if they're going on for personal attacks, then every one of those is out of process. In fact, if you read carefully, you'll see that they are not handed out individually for insults, and people are broadening, inappropriately, the "community patience" blocks. Geogre 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

George, NPA is indeed policy. If you don't think it should be, maybe you should try to change it. Woohookitty blocked for a week, which you seem to agree (now) is appropriate. Jeffrey O. Gustafson extended the block to indefinite. Woohookitty took it back to one week. So in a week he can come back. I think an indefinite block is appropriate; that's what I gave him before. Based on past experience, when he comes back he'll spew more vitriol. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tom. I don't have a problem with a week but on the other hand, I don't have alot of confidence that this user is going to stop doing what he was doing. It's not about assuming good faith. I think when you have a user who has been blocked 8 times, it shows a certain inability to change. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to a week. I agree that he's awful, and I think that he should be RFaR'd. What I don't agree with it indefinite blocking for insulting language. NPA is a policy that says it is our policy not to attack. Note that there are no sanctions there. Note also that the proper course of action specified is the removal of the insult to an archived location with a placeholder saying where it went. Not blocking forever. I think this user should be gone, but not by unilateral action. It should be a slam dunk, fast ArbCom case, if ArbCom is meeting quickly. Geogre 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is my take... nobody is claiming that a single AfD in and of itself is disruption. But in combination with all his other disruption, and his clearly bad-faith misreading of AfD policy, it's a large strike against him. And as of yet I've seen only marginal evidence that H.E. is attempting to make productive edits. Within the past week to Dhimmi alone he has blanked material against consensus [5], quote-dumped against WP:NOT policy (with no references to boot) [6], added material using blatantly unreliable sources [7], and repeatedly re-restored examples of such after being reverted and chastised by other editors. Is he capable of contributing? Who knows. Combined with his dozens of personal attacks, racist statements, etc., I would say he's clearly exhausted the community's patience. But if the indefinite is not going to stick, then I'm all for sending this to ArbComm. Somebody want to write it up? - Merzbow 18:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That's all I've been saying. I even think that you're right that this AfD was not the action, but rather the continuation of an action, that is evidentiary. However, I don't want any hint of a rumor of a whisper of a precedent set for blocking anyone for making an AfD, no matter how absurd or peevish it is. AfD doesn't hurt anything unless every voter there is asleep or crazy. Geogre 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well doing what he did is disruptive. And I am sure that at some point, someone has been blocked for a disruptive AfD. --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

User:CB Brooklyn

CB Brooklyn (talk · contribs) has been using unnecessarily nasty edit summaries refers to others as "trolls", MONGO is a troublemaker and needs to be flushed out of wikipedia, and when I asked him to make sure quoted items he placed into the article Steven E. Jones are referenced, he removes my posts from his talk page stating, removed toilet stuff, delete crap from toilet head and my favorite so far, delete garbage written by sick fuck. CB Brooklyn was recently blocked for 3RR on the same article. [8]. Would someone please ask him to be more polite in his edit summaries. Thanks.--MONGO 08:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. -- SCZenz 08:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the user has already been amply warned about personal attacks. I gave him a reminder of NPA, CIVIL, and to not removed talk page comments, along with brief block (12 hours), and told him that blocks would increase rapidly if he made further blatant personal attacks. There's no excuse for name-calling of this sort. -- SCZenz 08:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that while CB Brooklyn's behaviour is clearly improper... MONGO himself has been calling Brooklyn and others 'trolls and morons'. If there is "no excuse for name-calling of this sort", which I agree with, then being an admin should not be a free pass to antagonize people and then say, 'look what he did', if they respond in kind. Admins are supposed to behave better than the average user, not worse. --CBD 10:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, your insults just keep piling up. I want you to demostrate in that edit you linked how I called Brooklyn a moron or a troll. It was a non directive comment...maybe I meant you...maybe I meant someone else, who knows. Point is, I can see no comparison to the edit you linked with the one in which Brooklyn reverts polite messages I post on his talk page and uses the edit summary of "delete garbage written by sick fuck".--MONGO 13:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You request 'demonstration' of a connection you cannot see. Very well. Cyde questioned your blocks of people you were in a content dispute with [9]. You responded by arguing that your blocks were justified because those people were "trolls", "POV pushing morons", "conspiracy theorists", and "nitwits" who were "vandalizing" and posting "crap" -> [10] [11]. You used those terms to describe the people you blocked... namely (per your log of blocks) Pokipsy76, SkeenaR, and CB Brooklyn. Not me or "who knows". Those three people. Can you see it now? --CBD 14:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can break that down if we want to take up the rest of the noticeboard. I was conversing with cyde....Brooklyn was responding to me. Indirect-direct. If you think my actions so egregious, then why not block me...you seem to relish wheel warring, which is pretty much a big no-no as far as some lofty powers here think...but that didn't stop you, no, you're exempt! Special!--MONGO 14:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, calm down. The fact is, MONGO came here instead of unilaterally blocking CB Brooklyn. Let's not used this demonstration of responsibility on MONGO's part as an opportunity to criticize him. It's a bit odd, frankly, that a side conversation about a completely uninvolved editor is being brought into this discussion. JDoorjam Talk 15:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree strongly with JD. MONGO was asked not to impliment even obvious blocks against these users. Instead of using his tools in this instance, he did EXACTLY what he was told to do by his RFC - he was told to come here and present his case. He did. As such, he deserves praise for his appropriately changed behavior, not CBD going back to edits from just after the RFC was filed. If you, CBD, had wanted to block him for his edit on the 26th, you would have. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Coming here to ANI is what many in the RFC are asking of MONGO. CB_Brooklyn (talk · contribs) is clearly violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and a block by a third-party admin is justified here. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the block was justified. Yes, it is good that MONGO got someone else to do it. No, MONGO calling CB Brooklyn 'troll', 'conspiracy theorist', and 'moron' and then calling for a block and misrepresenting the history when CB Brooklyn responded in kind does not "deserve praise". --CBD 21:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

CBD, your harassment is getting tiresome.--MONGO 22:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe MONGO could use more polite words ("moron" is inappropriate). But, take a look at Wikipedia:What is a troll. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on this specifically, if we could as admins, all begin to demonstrate civil behavior it would be easier for us to enforce civil behavior. Any time we use words like "troll" or "idiot" we're mostly doing so out of laziness. It's simply not helpful, is not required, and almost always results in pointless discussion. Use polite and precise language wherever possible, things will go smoother.,
brenneman ^{L} 01:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For whatever my opinion as a non-admin is worth, everybody who has posted in this section has made a valid point. It probably deserves bearing in mind that everyone here has been engaged in a necessary, but very unpleasant excercise over the last couple of days. Therefore it is only natural that not everyone behaves the way they would like themselves to. I agree with the block, and I agree with Mongo referring it first. I also agree that comments on the block should not be made in the same nature as the reason for the block in the first place. In Mongo's defense, it would be hard for me not to be upset if edit summaries such the ones mentioned were directed at me. I'm taking an interest here because I would like it if we could edit articles without having to fight each other all the time. In my opinion, the articles would improve a lot better and faster if we didn't have to spend so much energy on conflict or resolution. I know that there are real issues involved in what should legitimately be included in the 9/11 articles, which naturally make for disagreements to arise, but please let's not try to be provocative with each other about it. I say that to all parties involved. I like to try and improve articles with whatever I might be able to contribute. I find it fun, educating, and challenging, but this kind of stuff makes it a lot harder for all of us when we spend our time on fisticuffs and what not instead of some nice writing or research or even just sharing some good information with each other. SkeenaR 06:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with a little name calling as I do on occasion have a sense of humor, and CB Brooklyns edit summaries are less offensive than some I have seen. I am familiar with his other posts from elsewhere, and they show a similar temperment, but saw no reason to drag all that out...I wasn't even asking for a block if he would abstain from this manner of conversation, so all I was doing was requesting a neutral third party to step in, since his responses to my requests were simply becoming worse, not better. I do agree with the block, however. I also agree that all of us involved in the disagreements on the 9/11 articles, myself included, could tone things down a lot. Thanks.--MONGO 07:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's awesome, I just hope I'm not being naive in thinking that things are improving. Thanks for considering what I had to say. SkeenaR 07:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

User: F 22 - Users who exhaust the community's patience - well mine anyway

OK - I know I can look elsewhere but the puerile activities of F 22 (talk · contribs) are mostly pointless and breach What wikipedia is not with regard to user space. Do we do anything with such users or do we just ignore? Suspect this does not quite fit within Users who exhaust the community's patience--A Y Arktos\^talk 10:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Userpage looks perfectly acceptable to me. Lapinmies 15:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• That's because I cleaned it. Of course, I wouldn't expect GNAA folk such as yourself to care much about keeping an appropriate userpage anyhow. --Improv 15:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmph, was that a personal attack? I am not amused. Lapinmies 15:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That was a personal attack, and a totally unwarrented one. Had the above exchange not taken place, I'd have looked at the user page and thought the objection was to the mass of boxen. I don't think that "Communisim Sucks a Fat one!" in enought to exhaust our patience. He's made very few article edits, but so what? They've been useful edits. Someone is already having a nice chat with him on his user page, so why does this need to come to ANI? - brenneman ^{L} 01:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

GNAA Folk, as Lapinmies is just another in a long list of those who have or had a presence on Wikipedia, have a habit of intentionally inflammatory and bizarre userpages that have frequently shown, at the very least, a lack of interest in harmonious participation in the project. This is a matter of fact, holding from the various incarnations of SPUI (an otherwise good editor in modern times who, apart from some current disputes, does not push things *too* far) to GNAA Timecop and the various other now permabanned members of the club. I find the attitude unfortunate, but we should not shy from speaking the truth out of being politic. I don't think my statement above should be construed as an attack. --Improv 05:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not a member. My userpage is satire. Lapinmies 07:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless we have particular edits that are problematic, it's bad form to make judgements based upon identity. To use someone's identarian characteristics pejoratively is a personal attack. That seems pretty straight forward to me.
brenneman ^{L} 14:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

When an identity has as its primary goal to make trouble, I think it's wholly appropriate. I am unapologetic. --Improv 22:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, I came upon the user because of problematic edits, perhaps not quite enough to warrant any action, other than a warning, which I gave, but ... and then you look at the sum of his other contributions, his user page, and I wondered, how do we manage? what should I do? - which is why I came here, for guidance.--A Y Arktos\^talk 22:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• I have blocked the user for two days for continuing to maintain inappropriate content on their userpage. --Improv 14:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked this user as a sock of either indefblocked User:Carbine or his self-admitted friend, User:Dfrg.msc. Neither have added anything of real value to Wikipedia over the course of the few months they've been here; Carbine's account was solely for vandalism, along with his legions of socks. In any case, it was an obvious sock to someone who's spent time with them so far. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 23:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Back in June Mackensen blocked F 22 (talk · contribs) as a confirmed sockpuppet of Carbine [12]. It seems that Dfrg.msc is a sympathiser of them both. Kevin 09:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked User:Rms125a@hotmail.com

Could an admin please investigate User:AbdulRahim@gmail.com and User:MaryLouise@gmail.com who I suspect are sockpuppets of banned user User:Rms125a@hotmail.com. This editor, like the banned user, is making petty edits to Irish related articles and making claims that other editors are "censoring", "revisionists" and "vandalising" them - the many of hallmarks of the banned user. Please investigate. Djegan 20:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if someone has turned out the lights but two recent samples of this editors work [13],[14](classic RMS nonsense); whilst this escapade proves they are one-in-the same[15]. Some one please investigate and bring closure. Djegan 22:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• MaryLouise@gmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is still doing bad-faith edits on various articles. Can an admin block please? Demiurge 19:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the non-intervention by administrators on this user one can only conclude that their is severe inaction in wikipedia regarding vandalism. Djegan 19:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You should take sock puppet investigations to WP:SSP! Iolakana|^T 20:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked MaryLouise@gmail.com (talk · contribs) for disruption i.e various scu, paedophile, wanker edits. Suggest listing them at checkuser page. Tim! 20:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

and AbdulRahim@gmail.com (talk · contribs) for good measure as blatant sock of MaryLousie@gmail.com Tim! 20:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• User:MaryLouise@gmail.com was already listed at RFCU: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rms125a@hotmail.com. Result was "possible". Since then, they made this edit, effectively confirming their real identity as Robert Sieger/Rms125a@hotmail.com. Demiurge 00:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks, pt 2

Recently, User:JzG accused me of a personal attack. I thought I'd point out this earlier posting by JzG that I think demonstrates that the hostility goes both ways. I had called JzG closed-minded and trigger happy (which I regret), but is calling me "obsessive" any better? Not that this in any way excuses my actions, but I just wanted to point out that there have been transgressions on both sides of this debate. A Transportation Enthusiast 04:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly call JzG's comments a personal attack, but I do agree the comment could have been toned down. joturner 05:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also call them fifteen days old. Even the dispute in question was archived. I'm not clear why this is being brought up now. I understand wanting to defend your reputation in the Wikisphere, but slinging more mud after the discussion has essentially ended won't help you with that. I'd respectfully suggest it's time to try to put this behind you. JDoorjam Talk 05:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't bring it up before because I didn't see it until today; JzG archived it just 30 minutes later. I only found out about it because of this blog entry by Avidor, which links to the archive page containing the attack (also linked here, with the quote). And, why is reporting this considered "slinging mud"? I just don't understand it: JzG reports an attack here, I get a stern warning. I report an attack, and I'm accused of mudslinging. Why is that? Isn't this where you're supposed to report stuff like this? A Transportation Enthusiast 05:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the quotation was from over two weeks ago and the discussion here ended three days ago. There's a time factor here. The point of this board is to spot ongoing incidents so that they can be dealt with and the project of writing an encyclopedia can commence. If JzG posted a fifteen-day-old link to you saying you were going to climb the Reichstag while dressed like Spider-Man, I'd probably wonder why he was bringing up an old issue. Hypothetically, if in the future he says not-nice things to you, I'd suggest you ask him about it on his talk page, and if he is still rude to you, then at that point, bringing it here would be more warranted. My apologies for using the term "mudslinging"; it was poorly chosen. Again, my comments are about the timing, and not the content, of your grievance here. JDoorjam Talk 06:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• General question for those on ANI regarding this type of a report. Is WP:PAIN only meant for "active" cases of personal attacking or does this type of a report fall under its auspices as well? Netscott 07:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon + Persians

User 24.211.192.250 has been systematically changing Persian to something else. I don't know what is right on all of these issues but on Rumi, at least, it does go against what has been in the article without discussion. I almost blocked the user but... I figured I'd place it here. If another admin wants to deal with it, good. Or, I deal with it later if someone adds onto my talk page... but, is a ban in order? and should they all be reverted? gren グレン 04:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

How easy it has to claim that somebody "has been systematically changing Persian to something else". Please check my contribution history. I've edited the articles which the above editor/admin considers as Persian only once. The above post also reflects the obsession of some editors to label or insert Persian into as many articles as possible [16], [17], which is quite problematic, especially when one edits articles with such nationalistic views that creates biases. 24.211.192.250 10:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Proven sock of banned editor

Thunderbird15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been proven by RFCU to be a sock of the blocked User:Lightbringer (see report on WP:LTA) who is banned by ArbCom. Could we please have Thunderbird15 blocked?

Thank you. WegianWarrior 08:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Why can't they be immediately blocked by whoever confirms the connection? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • According to the various discussions I've seen, the RFCU privileged users have no time to go around taking action, it's up to the requester to get the necessary action taken. Just zis Guy you know? 12:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The important thing is that he gets blocked. Thanks again :) WegianWarrior 12:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting libellous revisions

What is the correct procedure for requesting deletion of libellous revisions? There are some unsubstatiated comments in Michael Jackson (Anglican bishop) which led an anon IP to tag the whole article for speedy deletion. That's obviously not necessary here, so I removed the db tag, but I don't quite know how to get the few revisions deleted. Cheers --Pak21 11:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, an admin can delete the lot of it and then only restore the non-libellous edits. Can you provide diffs to said problem edits? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure: [18] [19] [20]. Cheers --Pak21 12:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. Just zis Guy you know? 12:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
      • One more that I missed originally: [21]. Apologies for making people do this twice. Cheers --Pak21 14:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to alert us. --mboverload@ 06:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Aditya.pidaparthy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone look at this user's talk page and his contribs? He has lots of images uploaded with faulty copyrights along with a whole mess of moves. I can't tell if this is a vandal or just a very confused new user. Could someone take a look? --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I just spent well over an hour undoing the mess this guy caused. He caused 3 double redirects and 2 redirects that didn't need to be redirects. Plus he created a duplicate article and 2 copyvios. Goodness. I warned him on his talk page. Need to watch his edits for awhile. Nothing worse than people doing moves that don't know how to do them properly. Blech. --Woohookitty^(meow) 16:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the history here: [22]--he's in a revert war with Tawkerbot. · rodii · 16:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours for the revert war. Maybe someone could leave a message on his talk page about his behavior.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert war with Tawkerbot? Uh, who's going to win there???? LOL! That's hilarious... that person has to be new and confused... seriously. Netscott 17:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'd go with Netscott here. I think he's just new. --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I ended his block early. He probably should've been warned before the 3RR rule was invoked. I highly doubt he knew what it was. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

eh.. ?

R. S. Shaw (talk · contribs), could someone please fix these pagemoves?--71.247.107.238 15:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with them? --InShaneee 16:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

They make the page completly un-usable, look at what was done to the WP:RD/s and tell me you wouldn't be horrified if the same thing was done to AN/i--71.247.107.238 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's all still working for me. Are you talking about old sections being archived? Please be a bit more specific about what you think is wrong. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Beingtoofree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This single purpose vandal account needs to be blocked indefinitely. This account's sole purpose was to repeatedly remove wikilinks and blank images related to one article. Royboycrashfan (talk · contribs) blocked for 24 hours but this needs to be permanent. This user was vandalizing WP:AIV as well. Thanks. Netscott 19:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's removings pics and links to Muhammad cartoon controversy... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm about 99% sure that recently permanently blocked user Dangling_pointer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same individual from the pattern of vandalism (WP:AIV, etc.). Netscott 20:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Grafikm: That's censoring! Iolakana|^T 20:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem with User:RandomCritic

User RandomCritic has posted a request for arbitration with respect to his claims that I have harassed him and revealed personal information about him. He has failed to substantiate these allegations in a convincing manner and I note that his request for arbitration looks as though it will be rejected. I would therefore like to bring the following selection of recent comments made by user RandomCritic to administrator attention on account of their incivility, defamatory nature and other infringments of Wikipedia policy. (I am sorry I have to quote all these verbatim as I am not sure how to make short-cut links to them.)

Posted to Talk:Anatta: With reference to another user:

"I have no doubt and no hesitation in saying that you are completely unqualified as a Pali translator". RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

and

"And you advertise yourself as a Pali scholar? Or any sort of scholar?" RandomCritic 06:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

and

"You consistently use bad translations, because you don't know enough Pali to tell a good translation from a bad. ...... You could try learning Pali if you don't want to face continued embarrassment." [RandomCritic] 06:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

and

"I have no doubt and no hesitation in saying that you are completely unqualified as a Pali translator. There is a special word for someone who claims qualifications he utterly lacks, but I believe it would be impolitic of me to use it here". RandomCritic 06:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Then, with reference to myself:

"If you do not know Pali, then you had no grounds for endorsing his "translations", and my linguistic explanations will make no sense to you. I can only suggest that you study the language for yourself, in that case .... I appreciate your offer to rewrite the page, however, I have concerns about your ability to present a neutral point of view, as I understand you are not a disinterested party. I don't think there is any reason for you to rush". RandomCritic 21:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

and

"Hodge: I cannot and do not estimate any person based on their own claims of their talents or abilities: only by what they themselves exhibit and what I can myself double-check. .... But I ask you, assuming some small dose of knowledge on your part" RandomCritic 10:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Additionally in the Talk:Buddhism page, Vapour claims, sometime prior to the 19th June 2006:

"Dr Tony Page, aka TonyMPNS run a website in corraboration with Stephen Hodge".

To which user TonyMPNS replied later that day,

"Stephen Hodge does not run the "Nirvana Sutra" website with me - I do."

And I also replied,

"Of course, I know Dr Page personally, value his friendship and have produced translations for him on a professional, contractual basis, that he has reproduced on his website -- a website in which I have no direct involvement whatsoever." Stephen Hodge 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, RandomCritic persists in claiming in a posting to user Vapour's UserTalk, with the intention of implying that there is some form of cabal in play, that:

"both Page and Hodge are co-creators of the Parinirvana Sutra site listed in the External Links list. " RandomCritic 05:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I then posted a message to this RandomCritic's UserTalk page, beginning:

You said in a message to User Vapour's talk page, that "both Page and Hodge are co-creators of the Parinirvana Sutra site". I am categorically not a co-creator and I have nothing whatsoever to do with it, beyond the fact that Dr Page uses material he has paid me to translate for him. Would you please retract that statement ?"

I followed, unwisely in retrospect, this with what was intended as a humourous riposte, alluding to a certain user of a children's art website which I never assumed or believed was actually this user RandomCritic, who has indeed also subsequently confirmed is not connected with he/she/it.

However, I received this message on my Usertalk from RandomCritic:

I pity whatever poor person you have me confused with when you start sending her (or him) hatemail. You really don't have it together, Hodge. I recommend a vacation." RandomCritic 12:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This allegation is repeated by implication is RandomCritic's request for arbitration, with absolutely no corroborative or substantiating evidence:

I am concerned that User:Stephen Hodge's message may lead, or may have already led, to harassment of the person he has incorrectly identified as me. RandomCritic 14:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The above two sets of remarks are vicious, defamatory and obviously more serious in nature than any supposed actions on my part with respect to RandomCritic, given that my real-life identity is transparent.

I request that RandomCritic be urged to withdraw these statements and apologize.--Stephen Hodge 22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the section at the top of this page which says Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to read long diatribes. ? User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been having a dispute lately...

About a week ago or so, I had a debate with User:Wiarthurhu about whether the Eagle Premier was the successor to the AMC Matador. He got angry with me and claimed that I was intentionally removing information, when in fact I was removing his claims because they were unsourced. I told him to show his sources, and the sources he gave didn't say anything about his claims. I then brought the issue up to WikiProject:Automobiles, where the debate was ended in my favor. During the dispute, however, he used two IP addresses to revert my changes and used one of them to attack me, calling me a "menace" and a "nuisance". He also accused me and User:Bravada of vandalism on the AMC Eagle page, when we had no such intent. Recently, he left me some nasty comments on my talk page, which I removed, but he still won't back down on personally attacking me. He also claims that I "damaged" the AMC Matador article after I performed some requested cleanup work from User:SteveBaker.

The same user was also involved in a dispute with User:Mmx1 about the F-14 Tomcat article, in which Wiathurhu exhibted similar behavior. He's also used his own user page and the requests for meditation board to launch personal attacks against Mmx1. Me and Mmx1 have tried reporting him to Wikiquette alerts, but we have not gotten a response yet. Here are the related links to my dispute: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

--ApolloBoy 22:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Examples of the user's behavior in my dispute with him in the F-14 matter:

• rewriting a request for mediation (which we both agreed to) from a neutral content dispute resolution into an attack on me and my qualifications [31]

and despite participating (even if in bad faith) in a request of mediation, continuing to edit the page in dispute Special:Contributions/Wiarthurhu.

• repeatedly calling into question my qualifications including insinuated personal attacks on my academic qualifications and intelligence[32]

As far as I know, I have no reason to believe that you have even a bachelors degree, ever taken a course in writing or logic, ever wrote a computer program, or even held a job, let alone an IQ over 100, purchased, borrowed, browsed or even read a single book, magazine, watched any media or even visited an aviation museum exhibit on the F-14.

• using the Wikipedia article as a soapbox for content disputes: [33]
• and behaving in a generally antagonistic manner:

""I dare you to revert that, unless you believe you are a more reliable source than Grumman's original test pilot"

• dared editors to revert him[34]
• proclaiming "VICTORY"[35]
• treating mediation like a fight: "bring it on, baby" [36]
• defining a mediation in terms of win/loss for either side [37]

--Mmx1 23:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem with User:70.81.168.141

This user is continually adding unnecessary information to the lead of the Nelly Furtado article. [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] He/she refuses to follow WP:LEAD and is adding statements such as "it still managed to hit platinum in 2 countries and gold in over 5 other countries, including USA, UK and The Netherlands" to the lead. Detailed sentences about what countries a musician's second album was certified Gold and Platinum definitely do not belong in an article's lead. This article was recently promoted to Good Article status and this user is continually making unconstructive edits. When approached at his/her talk page, they refuse to rationally discuss the issue and instead swear and state that they can and will do whatever they want (in violation of WP:OWN). "I want it like that and i will continously change it! good bye." [43] and "I WILL DO WHAT I WANT ! its a freee site good bye!" [44]. On the Nelly Furtado talk page, he/she states "quit changing the damn article! I want it like that i think its FINE! leave it alone!!!!!" [45] and "DO NOT CHANGE IT GOD DAMMIT!" [46]. The user is also in violation of the 3RR rule, which I must admit I am also in violation of, as I am trying to remove the unconstructive/fancruft-ish edits the user continually makes but refuses to discuss. --Musicpvm 00:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Brian G. Wilson apparently evading block

Due to similar writing styles, similarly hostile/above-the-rules attitudes, timing of edits, overlapping edits on Talk:Kris Weston, and similar edits on various other articles, I am fairly well convinced that B G Wilson and Sky-surfer are sockpuppets of Brian G. Wilson (interesting discussion page there), who was blocked on June 19 for legal threats, personal attacks, and threats to 'destroy Wikipedia', and whose dubious vanity article claiming royal kinship was deleted on June 27. I'd just like it to be noted that while his rants have toned down, he is using these other accounts to evade the block. It's not clear to me whether that's a violation of policy, per se.—mjb 01:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Salman01 block review

Salman01 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has unilaterally engaged in moving many pages with titles from "bint" to "binte" because that is what he calls the proper spelling. Britannica uses "bint" for Fatima and other scholarly sources. For instance google "Salma bint Umays" vs, "Salma binte Umays". 0 hits vs. 137. My point is, even if he is right it's not a settled matter. It was all done in good faith I believed and I did warn him. He deleted my comments and then posted a response claiming he was right. He subsequently removed all of the pages that I had taken the effort to revert. I blocked him for 24 hours and I want this block reviewed. I don't really think of myself as involved since I don't care if it's bint or binte since I don't know which is proper but unilaterally moving so many pages without discussing which is proper and then ignoring requests for him to seek consensus strikes me as disruption. (If my block was unjustified please say so.)

On anotehr note the user pastes large chunks of texts from other sites and his response to me says it's okay because other sites paste chunks of Wikipedia. I am not sure if he is saying that Wikipedia was the original source for the other articles online or what... but, in any case they aren't neutral and add nothing. He has also uploaded images with {{book cover}} that clearly aren't book covers. I just want to know how admins think I should procede with this... block for longer if he continues? undo the block now? revert all of the bint -> binte? gren グレン 06:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems fine to me. As for other sites copying content that he wrote, that is unlikely if it was discovered quickly. If I understand correctly and assuming the potential copyvio was found throught Google, Wikipedia's database dump has to be updated to include the edit, then the site has to update their copy of Wikipedia and then they have to wait for Google to come around and index their site again. Depending how frequently we update our database (it has not been updated since mid-May) and when Google last indexed their site (and whether it is one of the sites they index frequently or not), it might take several days or up to several months for this to happen. -- Kjkolb 11:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I support the block. Copying large blocks of text from other web sites isn't acceptable; if he's had that explained to him and continues to do it, yeah, he should be blocked for it. Similarly, if he's using the wrong tags on uploaded images, especially clearly copyrighted ones, he needs to have the policy explained and potentially be blocked. I would revert all the bint/binte changes and encourage him to start a discussion on a relevant page or relevant pages to try to build clear consensus for the moves. JDoorjam Talk 16:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to have responded at all to my requests that he not do what he is doing and again erased my comments from his talk page (which, isn't exactly a good sign that he will listen). If he makes the changes again without discussion I am going to give him a week block. gren グレン 19:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing Vandalism warning?

Is it possible to remove a vandalism warning from my account - I'll be honest it irks me to know that people with vandal proof will see that I have a warning for what I consider 1)acting in good faith and 2) in line with Wikipedia guidelines.

I removed a Vandalproof logo from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abdelkweli . This was after it came to my attention that his page contained mainly fictional awards and seemed to be copied wholesale from another user. I left a message on his userpage asking if he required assistance setting up his userpage and also suggesting that he removed both the Vandalproof logo and one that said he had 2,500 edits (he had about 100 mostly to his own userpage). After no response I then removed the vandalproof logo with a clear edit reason to explain why. In return he placed a vandalism warning on my userpage. As I mentioned I feel I acted both in good faith and inline with Wikipedia guidance. --Charlesknight 09:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The answer is "of course," at least from my point of view. If you had been accused of an article vandalism, the matter would need to rest for longer. Since it's a questionable author's questionable page that you changed, it seems kosher to me to remove the warning. New and bad users like to use the word "vandal," and this one used the template. No difference. (At the same time, I did see, on your talk page, some (inadvertent, I hope?) overly tight vandal locks on some pages. I assume that you're living and learning and not intentionally locking down pages. (Syd could have played both, of course.) Geogre 13:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes - in getting the hang of vandalproof I have been a bit on the tight side - in that incident, I want straight to the user's page and explained that I HAD been overly tight and that he should re-write the text as he felt fit (I also left a welcome and suggested that he got a user-id because it would make future conversation easier). --Charlesknight 13:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Zer0faults

Can somebody look into Zer0faults (talk · contribs) actions, he is blindly reverting,13:54, July 1, 2006[47] 13:25, July 1, 2006[48] 13:08, July 1, 2006[49] 12:52, June 30, 2006[50][51] refuses to discuss[52] or read the articles that supports the edit he objects to (unitary executive, signing statement, unlawful combatant, extraordinary rendition) and he also makes incorrect edit summaries: claiming the rv is because there is no evidence but in fact he refuses to read the evidence. He removes comment on his odd behaviour from his talk page with rather uncivil edit summary.[53][54][55]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason you didnt add this comment in your list, the first comment you made on my page "The fact you fail to read them but still claim UET is not being used proves you are only being a dick." --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This user has been asked to provide some proof of his claim that, The Bush administration uses Unitary Executive Theory to justify Black Sites, Extraordinary Rendition etc. He refuses to do this. User:WGee has asked that all additions be fully sourced, I have begun compiling sources for the existing content and have asked Nescio to provide sources for his additions, he refuses and puts the following on my talk page [56] --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

AGF violation "All you need is in the articles and references, why do you refuse to read it if not out of POV pushing." [57] After asking this user to provide a source. I do not see why they feel everyone should fetch sources for the content they add. Furthermore the Unitary Executive Theory is not appropriate for the template much like Guantanamo Bay. The templates for Cold War and WW2 do not list places and law theories, they list events. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You can further see the mess they have created on the talk page. First they challenged the foundation of everything in the template. When given reasons, they in a violation of WP:POINT broadly attempted to rework the entire page, changing events to actions so they can list everything they feel belongs in the template without discussing with anyone. I started a poll to see if anyone supported this, only he voted in support, myself and another user opposed. He has since been attempting to put it into the template anyway. The template listed only events and leaders. He feels every action taken, every law that is similar, every place etc should be included. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove my comments from this page. Admins decide what is not appropriate. You want to bring it here, then they should look at everything you did on the page, the whole issue you created, supporting the deletion, [58] then in that failing attempting to bloat it and start conflicts. Direct violation of WP:POINT. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You have removed my comments twice now from an official Wikipedia page, please cease your censorship actions. [59] [60]. And I am being accused of removing comments? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved comment to relevant talk page, this is not the place.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton}

How is referring to the articles and their references not providing evidence? Clearly what this user wants is that I go to these articles copyedit the txt and refernces and place it on the talk page. However, he is old and wise enough to do that himself. His elaborate writings prove he is capable of reading himself and does not need me to copyedit the relevant text.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I ask that the enthousiastic and prolific writer keeps his requisaitor limited to the relevant talk page.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not an incident requiring administrator intervention. This is an ongoing content dispute and personal conflict requiring mediation, patience, and hot tea. In any case, the two of you simply yelling at each other does not need admin attention. JDoorjam Talk 16:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone should write a sitcom about you two (Nescio and Zer0faults). You remind me of Felix and Oscar, though I'm not saying which is which. KWH 17:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to be Oscar. Sorry Nescio seems like you are Felix. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Kven revisited

I thought the Kven editor had been blocked indefinitely, but apparently he has not and is lately editing as WhatHaveWeHere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Hjalmar Berg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (new additions to the several dozen of usernames he has used before). If the phrase "exhausting the community's patience" is supposed to have any meaning, I see no reason not to ban this user or at least block him indefinitely. up+land 15:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond

Could someone take a look at Justforasecond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 130.94.134.166 (talk · contribs), and 84.178.238.68 (talk · contribs)? JFAS was blocked for 3RR yesterday, and immediately, these two ips are reverting to JFAS's preferred versions on two different articles. I'm strongly biased so cannot give a proper analysis. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr Mark Mayall

I would like to ask that this article's deletion is carefully reviewed by parties independent of those who nominated and deleted it or voted for its deletion. 213.122.71.45 19:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The article was properly deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Mayall. If our anonymous interlocutor wishes it undeleted he should follow the undeletion request process. Homey 19:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam Swerling

I would like to ask that this article's deletion is carefully reviewed by parties independent of those who nominated and deleted it or voted for its deletion. 213.122.71.45 19:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted through proper process. See WP:DRV if you wish to contest it. --InShaneee 19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

AlexPU

I have no experience interacting with AlexPU (talk · contribs), other than running into him today following the lifting of his one-month ban. [61] He has been making disruptive comments in his edit summaries on Russia [62] and personal attacks in a TfD discussion. An admin should at least give him a warning, reminding him of the minimum norms of civility on this site. 172 | Talk 23:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, AlexPU insulting everybody... Yes, he just got back from a block (3/4 of it actually, since Alex Bakharev unblocked him if AlexPU would edit articles and not engage in personal attacks - I'll let the diffs speak themselves to judge if it's the case)

Here is a sample of his vocabulary since he came back:

• Telling a user to "get lost of his talk page" [63]
• Here, he suggests to de-sysop all admins voting keep on a TFD vote : [64]
• Here, he's attacking Russian wikipedians [65]
• Talking about "bullshit blanking" : [66]

And it's just a sample... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)