Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive221

User:Berks

The above user has been stalking me on a number of articles which I have started and developed over the last few weeks. This has led to an edit war which is annoying beyond all measure. He has obviously categorised me as difficult and inflexible, and on a number of occasions has stated that I am not worth talking to. I feel that his following me and changing articles as they are being written, is more than any reasonable person should be expected to endure. Besides Hermann Eckstein which was started a few hours ago, he has edited among others - sometimes constructively, often maliciously - George Albu, Lionel Phillips, Lady Phillips. I feel that I am being deliberately targeted by Berks and cannot work under these conditions. For a list of articles I have started please see my home page. Some help and intervention would be appreciated. Paul venter 13:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In order to avoid discussion forking, it should be noted that this situation has already been commented on above (look up about 9 sections). Please leave all future comments there. Thank you. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 14:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:B9 hummingbird hovering

Marks almost every edit made as minor. When cautioned about it It's not vandalism, per se, but has, in past content disputes, been seen as a dishonest way of pushing unsourced POV material into article so it won't be noticed. retorted (their words) with an accusation of offensiveness. Continues, after being asked not to mark additions of information as minor, to mark them as minor.--Vidkun 13:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you did kinda hint he was being sneaky. I would probably have taken offense too. I left him a polite note on his talk page telling him how to turn it off in his preferences. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn

Another WP:BLP case

This stems from an OTRS complaint.

Melissa Guille (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was stated in the article on Canadian Heritage Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to have been a member of Heritage Front, a white supremacist organisation; therefore she was stated to be a white supremacist, and Canadian Heritage Alliance was stated to be a white supremacist organisation. Uninvited Company stubbed it, but it still contained a stray weasel word, and of the two sources one is 404, one seems pretty trivial, and the other looks like a piece of investigative journalism which is, functionally, the sole source for either.

Problem 1: Guille denies ever having been a member of the Heritage Front. Others have also denied this.

Problem 2: Although it is stated that Guille was to appear on charges [1], there is no other coverage of this that I can find, and no evidence of a conviction.

Problem 3: I set out to rewrite the Guille article from scratch, but with fewer than 900 Google hits (including mirrors) and zero on GNews or Factiva I could not actually find any neutral sources from which to draw.

Problem 4: As problem 3, but for Canadian Heritage Alliance, and the number of ghits is below 600.

Truthfully, I'd vote to keep these at AfD based on the sources originally cited and because of my natural bias against racists, but I am having a really hard time finding anything which indicates notability of these subjects. I'm pretty confident that if I heard her speak I would cheerfully pelt her with rotten fruit, but despite my liberal tendencies I can't see that as a reason for maintaining an article. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Soroush vs and 89.165.58.9

On 300 (film)'s talk page we're having a struggle with User:Soroush vs and anon IP 89.165.58.9, both of which I'm assuming is the same person (seeing as how they are both posting the same message), but I may be wrong. They are continuously spamming the talk page, even after several warnings, with the same message. Despite being repeatedly told that the talk page is not a forum, this article does receive a lot of forum-ish additions, but this user has, by my count, copy and pasted the same message more than six times after having been reverted, and has likewise added innappropriate comments about the movie (not the article) in the past. Some help would be appreciated. María: (habla conmigo) 15:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You've already given a level 3/4 warning to the non-anon so I think that's fine if you keep increasing it. The best thing to do, however, would be to ask the user why he/she is continuously posting that information again and again. x42bn6 Talk 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll

Per comments on the Talk page here, and in other locales, it appears groups of editors are specifically against Jimbo's specifically requested public poll to gauge thoughts/support on the idea of the ATT merger. As it has been stated that the Poll is "dead" per users such as User:WAS 4.250, I am nominating this. If there is wide spread support to run this poll, this page should be kept. The MfD is here:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll

Thank you. - Denny 16:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad that was speedy closed. No one is forced to participate in a poll, but editors shouldn't try to go against those that do want to participate. You have been played into submitting the poll for deletion and derailling the whole proces. Here's a rule of thumb: if you don't want something deleted, don't nominate it. --Edokter (Talk) 17:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I realized afterwards that those who want to stop the poll had unwittingly manipulated me into doing that. - Denny 18:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh?! You saw discussion regarding the possibility of not taking the poll "live," so you ran off and nominated the whole thing for deletion (despite the fact that you didn't want to delete it, nor did anyone else). —David Levy 18:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

On that note, good luck with this poll. I'm going on to work on completely different things for now and won't be editing these pages again except to state my desires when the poll does go live. - Denny 19:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Guess that didn't last long.El_C 18:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My faith in my peers having the common sense to let everyone finally voice their opinion in one place, with everyone being notified, won out. - Denny 18:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside of MfD, thankfuly. El_C 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Let everyone finally voice their opinion in one place"?! You forked the discussion into yet another vote on a separate page!

Your argument is a straw man, given the fact that no one is attempting to silence discussion or prevent adequate notification. Only the format is under debate. —David Levy 18:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Since getting involved with this really my only concern is that 1) every or theoretically as many users get shown this thing for at least a week, so no one misses it for being out of WP a day or three; 2) everyone gets to see and read everyone's thoughts on ATT in one centralized place. Whether we call it a poll, rfc, or whatever, is meaningless. Basically, people are entitled to voice their support or displeasure at this point in one centralized place. - Denny 18:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:CarlHewitt revisited

I'd like a second opinion as to whether suspected sock puppet 2ndMouse (talk · contribs) is violating Carl's RfAr in multiple edits of concurrent programming articles, mostly adding Carl's articles and re-adding his POV. As I've actually made substantive edits in (some) of the articles, I don't think I'm the one to block. Please feel free to edit the {{user}} template to a more appropriate template if it adds appropriate links. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet attack - range block?

After this sockpuppet army attack by Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs), involving mass uploads of unfree images, and most recently this: [2], I'm considering a range block. Takers, anybody? We are dealing with two blocks of /16 each, for starters. He has apparently enough wheathered accounts to sit through semiprotection of his articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I support it. That said, I suspect complaints will be raised about blocking 131,072 IP addresses. It's worth trying to contact the ISP first though this has never worked for me. --Yamla 16:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft

Can an admin pls fix this? It was moved to Micropoop and Microcrap, then blanked, and it appears that, without admin tools, I can't fix it. I don't know how/where to find the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Am I correct that admin tools were needed to undo that, or should I have been able to do it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your correct that admin tools were needed as new pages were created to prevent the page being moved back to it's correct location. It'll not be going on any mystery tours anytime soon either ;-) -- Nick ^t 17:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. And also Xbox 360 moved by by the same account User:Falcon866, who seems to have previously been a good contributor. His account may have been compromised. Anyone familiar with this user? There is an email enabled- perhaps I should contact him.... WjBscribe 17:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I just denied his first unblock request, but do what you will if he responds in a way you deem worthy of unblocking, and preferably if you can get a bit of consensus to do so. My view: I see a history of off-and-on vandalism, including previous pagemove vandalism. If this account is compromised, it should be blocked. If this user is interspersing good edits with vandalism in order to game the system, it should be blocked. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And it doesn't appear to be a compromised account, I suspect someone who gets bored easily- there have been similar page moves in this account's past. I don't envisage unblocking at present. WjBscribe 17:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree as well. The March 10 A-Rod to Gay-Rod is too recent. I'm not convinved on the moves to The Naked Brothers Band either; it seems that the original disambiguation page made sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And then there's User:66.30.157.82, whose autoblock affected Falcon866 (User_talk:Falcon866/Archive_1). Looks like the user. There may be more instances of this occurring... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:POINT.

Steve Dufour (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) was previously blocked by User:Johntex, for "Violation of WP:POINT". Certainly the recent nomination of a Featured Article for deletion qualifies as such a disruption. The result was Speedy Keep, clearly there must be some sort of process to take with regards to this user's inappropriate actions?? Thank you for your time. Smee 00:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

User:Steve Dufour has been a member since May 2006, and has over 4,500 edits. This was clearly not a good faith AFD nomination, but an out and out disruption of the project to make a point. Smee 00:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

I have to agree with this. The argument for deletion was basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT and completely ignored the substance of our notability policy - the AfD was a complete waste of time. I suggest that the user be given a warning and with a request not to post any more AfDs. (I'd do it myself, but I voted in the referenced AfD, so I'm recusing myself on this one.) -- ChrisO 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As well, the notability of the article (specifically the primary criterion) was pointed out to him before he added the AFD. AndroidCat 01:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The article I nominated for deletion was Xenu. Xenu is a fictional character created by L. Ron Hubbard but not featured in any of his stories published for the general public. He is a mythological figure for Scientologists, a very small group of people numbering perhaps 100,000 world-wide. Not all Scientologists, even, believe in his existence since he is only revealed after they reach a higher level of training. As far as I know, no one outside of Scientology believes in his existence at all. Xenu, unlike other supernatural figures, seems to have had no influence on human culture. To me this does not add up to WP type notability. Having said that, the article itself is well written and well sourced and represents a lot of hard work by the editors. However, the information about him is already featured in other WP articles including Space opera (Scientology). I think that the article specifically about Xenu as an individual should be deleted, while the ones on Scientology beliefs which mention him should be kept. Another article on Xenu as a pop culture fad (South Park and stuff like that) might also be a possibility. I brought up all these points in the discussions before and during the deletion process. Steve Dufour 03:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your definition of notability is remarkably different from that of Wikipedia. The threshold of notability on Wikipedia is whether it can be sourced via reliable sources as prescribed by WP:RS, not whether the general public knows of this character's existence. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A character in an unpublished story is not notable. But maybe you are right and I don't understand WP at all. Steve Dufour 04:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy that, particularly considering the number of edits you have. I suggest you lay off the trolling; it's not helping anyone. -- ChrisO 08:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I did expect the discussion to be left open for more than four hours. Steve Dufour 10:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You see, it was closed due to the numerous "Speedy keep" votes, a sure sign that editors believed it, as a featured article, and also as an important one that meets the first and other criteria of WP:N, those being that if it can be sourced by reliable sources, it is of value to Wikipedia. The role of editors on Wikipedia is to contribute to a comprehensive resource of human knowledge. Actions taken in potential bad faith, such as nominating a well-sourced (You yourself have admitted on many occasions I could link to that it is well sourced AND well written) article for deletion unilaterally, rather than discussing potential issues with other editors, hamper the whole process.

To quote from the previous link:

I think that the article is well sourced and mostly well written, and represents a lot of hard work. It just does not establish the notability of the subject. Steve Dufour 16:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Those two contentions contradict one another. If it is a lot of hard work, well sourced (Implying an abundance of sources, which are also reliable), and mostly well written (something you could improve by contributing writing instead of AFDs intended to make a point...), then how can notability not be established, being aware of the bolded portion of WP:N listed below?

Xenu IS notable. Your definition of notability seems to differentiate from WP:N. I am willing to cede that some things just are not notable, but contend that Xenu definitely is. I am not going to claim I have a closed mind, though. If you can show me how the Xenu article, as it is, does NOT stand up to the first condition of Notability as stated in WP:N, you will have brought me around to your way of thinking.

The criteria I am thinking of is as follows: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject"

Your view of notability is not the one shared by Wikipedia as a whole, and this editor and others who have expressed their opinion here, in particular. I support consideration of your actions as a violation of WP:POINT, and as a watcher on the sidelines, would like to add that someone with so many edits really ought to know the notability and reliable source criteria, and understand that the vision of Wikipedia as a repository of extensive human knowledge would be harmed by the removal of any substantive subject matter, not helped. There is a difference between meaningless bombast and well-written information on a subject of interest, with myriad web sites referring to it. Xenu is notable, I humbly request you take the outcry over even -considering- deleting it, to be in the vein of deleting any other article about a notable subject:

That vein being abject disbelief that anyone could consider removing something people are bound to desire extensive knowledge about, and which is well-sourced. I posit also: If the article WERE to be deleted, where would we put all of the well-written, well sourced (and therefore also notable and reliable by Wikipedia's standards) information? Delete it and remove it from this repository of knowledge? That seems counter-intuitive to the whole project goal here.

Peace, and Eris be with you. Raeft 15:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The information on the non-notable person Xenu could be put in the article on the notable subject of which he is a part: Space opera (Scientology). ("Xenu" could be redirected there.) Xenu as a pop culture fad, which is how he is known to the world, could have its own article. If Xenu is discovered to have been real after all then he should have his own article. Steve Dufour 16:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And again, after having it explained to him several times, by several different people, that Xenu does not in any way match Wikipedia's description of "non-notable", Steve does not even acknowledge that anyone has even questioned his assertion of non-notability but instead states it as if it were fact (gratuitously, I might add.) Is such behavior CIVIL or evidence of trolling? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You can kick me off of Wikipedia if you like, but that wouldn't make the imaginary Xenu notable. Steve Dufour 17:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Woah, let's calm down here people. Was this a bad faith nom? Yes, absolutely. Was this a WP:POINT violation? I'm nto exactly sure what point he was trying to make in this case. I've seen him around, and he's generally a good user from what I've seen. Warn him, let it go, and don't provoke him into violating anything. Oh, and Steve, there's plenty of imaginary things on Wikipedia, leave it be. Of course there's not going to be a sentence that says "this is notable because..."--Wizardman 17:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wizardman. If they want to have an article on Xenu I will not object any more. Steve Dufour 17:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• ChrisO stated above:

I have to agree with this. The argument for deletion was basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT and completely ignored the substance of our notability policy - the AfD was a complete waste of time. I suggest that the user be given a warning and with a request not to post any more AfDs. (I'd do it myself, but I voted in the referenced AfD, so I'm recusing myself on this one.) -- ChrisO 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• I second this recommendation, it would be a fair approach, in light of this user's recent disruptive actions. Smee 18:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
  • More disruption, violation of WP:POINT: DIFF 1, DIFF 2, AndroidCat thankfully removes, with edit summary: "rv Steve, please stop mucking about with WP:POINT". It may take a bit more than discussion here, for the disruption to cease... Smee 19:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

My 2cents: Steve is a border case - he has always been very polite and nice and has avoided edit wars. However, many of his edits result in a waste of time for the other editors involved. My argument is somewhat weak, since he isn't disruptive enough for me to keep evidence records. I suggest a symbolic, short block for his AFD of a featured article, whose name has over a million hits on google. I wish Steve would concentrate on topics he knows about, instead of trying to "please" groups or people whom he thinks would appreciate it. --Tilman 19:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• More disruption, after being warned about WP:POINT by User:AndroidCat - DIFF 1. More disruption DIFF 2. This one is also Asking the other parent, after not getting a satisfactory result from multiple editors at Talk page for Scientology article. Thanks for your time. Smee 16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

I would like to point out that "polite" and "nice" are not at all the same thing as behaving with actual civility. An important part of WP:CIVIL is "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others", yet this is exactly what Steve has done repeatedly. It is pointed out to him that notability of a concept is not measured solely in terms of those who believe in that concept, and a counter-example is provided,[3] yet his response simply asserts once again that if "almost no one believes" it then it is "rather unnotable".[4] He even continues to advance arguments dependent on this already debunked 'only consensus reality is notable' principle on this page: "As far as I know, no one outside of Scientology believes in his existence at all."[5] "If Xenu is discovered to have been real after all then he should have his own article."[6] "... that wouldn't make the imaginary Xenu notable."[7] Trying to shove through a deletion based on premises that other editors have already pointed out is false is not polite, even if the language used is polite. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar makes some excellent points above. Here is more evidence of what some would term a veiled personal attack at users who work hard finding sourced citations for this project - DIFF. Smee 17:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Steve Dufour I do not mean to pile on here, but this gives me second thoughts about whether I should WP:AGF toward you. I had assumed that the WP:COI issues were based on your friendship with Barbara Schwarz and nothing more, but when I see you nominated Xenu for deletion it put our dealings on Barbara Schwarz in question. I haven't followed the Xenu story closely, but I notice that Scientologists tend to downplay it's importance rather than deny it outright.

What you've done could be interpreted as either an indirect attack on Scientology, or as a favor to them because the CoS wants to keep Xenu and their higher levels secret. Saying that someone's spiritual beliefs simply don't exist could be accurate, but seems like a double standard if what you believe in is just as unprovable. Ask yourself, if someone made the same argument about the ideas of Sun Myung Moon being fictional and nominating they be deleted you'd probably feel somewhat slighted.

The other option is that you are helping to keep secret information which should not be. People ought to know what they are getting into upfront in any religion, wouldn't you agree?

• To anyone else reading this, Steve Dufour has been informed that some of his past WP:AfD requests and actions are against what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Here is a link to a WP:COIN archive of his actions on Barbara Schwarz. He has nominated the article for deletion twice, the logs can be found at Talk:Barbara Schwarz. Anynobody 01:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Something believed in by only Unification Church members probably should not have its own WP article. Come to think of it the Prodigal son as a person separate from the story in which he is a character probably should also not have his own article. (But then Jesus didn't give the characters in his stories as much interesting background material as Hubbard did.) Steve Dufour 17:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I would like to point out that the story of Xenu is not "unpublished". It has been published. The mere fact that the COS hasn't itself published it, is not relevant. Other people like Operation Clambake have. Whether or not that in itself is a violation of copyright is not relevant to the question of whether it's been published. Wjhonson 06:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the side of Barbara against the people who were attacking her. I take the side of Scientologists when they are treated unfairly here. And I take the side of Freezoners when they are attacked by the Church of Scientology. Steve Dufour 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Some would say that you take the side of Scientologists even when they are the ones acting unfairly. In fact that seems to be how you earned your previous block for violating WP:POINT.[8],[9] -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Well, since I apparently missed all the fun, let me make just a quick comment. For an editor that is not too familiar with Scientology or the criticism of Scientology, the amount of prominence given to Xenu here on wikipedia must seem very odd indeed. Now, if I personally had put Xenu up for AfD then I would deserve a strong warning as I know the "importance" that Xenu plays in holding Scientology up to scorn and since holding Scientology up to scorn is near and dear to the hearts of a number of editors and admins here and, in general, has a broader degree of agreement among 'netizens, of which the larger population of wikipedians is a subset; knowing that it would be disingenous of me to AfD something such as Xenu. Steve, however, is pretty much a neutral 3rd party who comes along and says, "This is odd". Very odd, indeed. But not in the way Steve thought. I can AGF that he truly wondered why such an article existed on Wikipedia. Myself, I know exactly why. --Justanother 16:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi JA. I would have told you about the nomination but I was afraid you would have to vote against it since as a Scientologist you probably believe Xenu is real and deserves his own WP article. :-) Steve Dufour 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. No, I would not have voted anything. I would have simply made the same comment I make above. --Justanother 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We couldn't possible have the article because of the multitude of sources that mention it. Right? He's not a new user, and he was told about this before it was nominated. I'd prefer to assume non-studity: he knew what he was doing. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Xenu is small potatoes (actually one small potato). The only "prominence" of Xenu is a manufactured prominence. It is a total red herring promoted by critics of Scientology to divert attention from the real purposes of Scientology; increased ability for the individual to be at cause over his own life. Xenu may or may not be a character that shows up to be addressed in an auditing session (or a number of sessions) on OT III. Big deal. Worth a mention in the main article or in an article on confidential upper levels. I can give you an analogy of misplaced prominence for the purpose of holding Scientology up to scorn. Fort Harrison Hotel. Here is a very nice 15-page piece on the history of this hotel. The hotel is important to the history of Clearwater. Look here at our article before I pruned it a bit and added a bit of balance. The article is predominently not about the hotel. It is about Lisa McPherson and about unrelated deaths of Scientologists in the Clearwater area sourced from one article. and the POV-pushers did not even get that right but I fixed it for them. I will leave it to another to make the call on the appropriateness of that inclusion at all but I try not to remove sourced material unless clearly inappropriate to the article. Removal of the names of non-notable people that died in a hotel from an article on that hotel is best done by a neutral party even if the inclusion was perhaps POV motivated. One small example of what I see when I survey the wikipedia landscape as it relates to Scientology. But that is OK. I am very much an eventualist and I think that neutral editors can be trusted to remove the worst of the WP:NOT a soapbox violations in the course of time and that knowledgable Scientologists like myself can improve the presentation of Scientology from its now somewhat unrealistic and disconnected presentation --Justanother 17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't care about how or why the notability was generated. Only that it's there. WP:Attribution is more important than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Putting a notable, featured article up for deletion is not the same as cleaning up an article on a hotel. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My point being that I see it much more as simple error by an editor unfamiliar with the rules of Scientology criticism on wikipedia than as some sort of WP:POINT exercise. Had I not been on wikibreak, I would have warned him of the outcome. --Justanother 19:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have listened to you if you had. :-) Steve Dufour 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're making this out to be some sort of anti-Scientology thing. He is not a new editor, and there was discussion about this. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. It is not only an anti-Scientology thing. The wider community has been bamboozled into buying into the whole internet misrepresentation of Scientology. Understandable given the current materialistic society, the rise of the anti-religious "New Atheists" on the 'net, and the failure of Scientology to repair the misrepresentation as of yet. Sorry again to get on my soapbox a bit. What it really is to me is just an AGF issue. Steve has proven, IMO, that he is worthy of AGF. It looks like he floated the idea of the AfD and got input from a number of the "usual suspects" (the anti-Scientologists) and a couple others and that Steve felt that perhaps the input he received was not representative of the community as a whole so he did the Afd. I just AGF that he believed that the wider community might side with him. No harm done. --Justanother 19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The vote was closed after 4 hours and 7 votes. Steve Dufour 00:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• I was looking for something else on the AN/I forum, and read through this and found myself rather surprised. In the interest of a calm, outside voice, I thought I might interject my opinion. It seems both sides are getting rather heated here, but I'm not sure that's warranted: was it a bad nomination? certainly; was it a bad faith nom? I'm not so sure. It appears to me from reading the nomination it was supported by reasoning from wikipedia policy, and though I might disagree with the reasoning of the nomination I must respect the user's right to his opinion. The fact a user holds an opinion shouldn't be counted against him. I admit I'm not familiar with the other editing conflict mentioned above, but the issue here seems to be the afd nomination. I do not think this was an instance of attempting to prove a point, and acting as if it were such in the abscence of clear evidence is being borderline uncivil. The AFD was speedily closed, per due process, the nominator said his peace and it turned out that consensus was against him. It was a one-time nomination, not, for instance, a batch of Scientology nominations in a flood; which is the usual pattern of a POV-pushing or otherwise bad-faith nominator (EG the mass-floods we get every now and again, like the sex slang one a while back, or others). It was perhaps a lapse of judgement, but consensus spoke and the user is now acting rationally and calmly. I fail to see the need here for tension... Wintermut3 00:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The pattern of behaviour on this user's part isn't so much one of POV-pushing as concern trolling - it's not surprising that people find this vexing, as it's been going on for some time. To assume good faith on the matter of the Xenu nomination, we have to assume that (a) the user was unaware that it was a featured article, which is improbable; and that (b) he was unaware of the thousands of reliable sources supporting the article's notability, which is extremely improbable given that many of them are cited in the article. If you're going to argue for the deletion of an article on the grounds of notability, shouldn't you at least make sure beforehand that your arguments hold water? Add to that this user's contention at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Scientology overcovered? that there are too many articles on Scientology on the grounds that "There seem to be about 100,000 Scientologists in the world so there is one article for every about 420 of them." The basis for this argument is dubious to say the least (it's already dealt with at WP:NOT#PAPER), but it seems to be the reason for the Xenu deletion nomination. -- ChrisO 07:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not say the article was a bad article. It is just that the subject of the article, the fictional character Xenu, is not himself notable. The stories about him are and are covered by other WP articles. Steve Dufour 16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should be extremely cautions about any banning or blocking of an editor because he nominated someone's favorite article or an article which has been promoted to "Featured Article" status. It is all too easy for a relatively small number of editors to promote an article to featured article status. The article being kept is a sufficient remedy. Punishment would have a chilling effect and make editors afraid to nominate any article which addresses someones beliefs for consideration of deletion, no matter how richly the articles deserved to be deleted. Repeated nominations of the same article by the same editor, or POINT nominations of a large number of articles would be the cases where punishments might be considered. When I use the "Random article" button I find a lot of utterly unsourced, poorly written, and trivial articles mixed in among the good articles. There are only about a hundred AfDs each day, and it does not take that long to go through them. I don't think anyone's life or Wikipedia were adversely affected in any way by this Afd, which probably should have been left open for the normal 5 day period. Edison 17:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Edison, I couldn't have said it better myself. I admit that I'm unaware of any previous history, but on the basis of the evidence for this incident alone I so see potential chilling issues, as well as the fact that this does not match the typical pattern of a disruptive user. Wintermut3 22:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen

This is a good faith user, who was blocked indefinitely for violating 3rr once. I've gone through his contribs, and I can see that he was indeed acting in good faith. So what does he get? An indefinite block on his accounts, and a three month block on his static IP which he has already specified is shared. Granted that his 'for Brian Peppers' edit summaries did not help, but he was just trying to carry out a Jimbonian decision. I'm posting this on his behalf after extensive discussion on IRC. I believe he should be unblocked after a week's cooldown on his main account, his socks should stay blocked,and the IP should be unblocked. He's certainly not a 'YTMND troll' as referred to by David Gerard in the IP's block summary. (That violated WP:NPA even.) Discuss below. ~Crazytales (Hasta la Pasta!) 23:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course...he has used a load of sockpuppets which doesn't help his case. IrishGuy ^talk 00:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is because Klinkerhoffen feels the first block was unwarranted, which I agree. He simply violated 3rr once, which on such a new account should be treated as just giving a warning. ~Crazytales (Hasta la Pasta!) 00:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

While the indef block may have been a bit severe, he was an edit warrior. It also doesn't give him the right to create 14 new accounts and continue the same behavior. I am not the blocking admin on this one so you should probably ask Ryulong his reasoning for the block. IrishGuy ^talk 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I also spoken to the blocked user on IRC; my suggestion to just to wait until his 3 Month block expires and monitor from there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too, right now infact. So far I've found him... unconvincing. There are several holes in what he's saying and he's dodging around positive suggestions about what to do about his problem. --Deskana (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I gave him some other suggestions, but he still claims that the "sockpuppet" accounts were used to get around a block that he considered unfair. Some of the things Ryulong said below (and to me in private) were confirmed by Klinkerhoffen himself, so I feel Ryulong's block was a good one in the context of the situation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have said this several times and on each and every one of his talk pages. He was censoring specific articles because of the sexually explicit images used on articles that describe aspects of human sexuality. I was not going to block him at first, but then I saw the two "For Brian Peppers" edit summaries. And this was on the day that we received a shitton of vandalism related to that damn YTMND meme. Since then, he has returned under a dozen sockpuppets, and when he confronted me via IRC, and I asked him why he had done the two edit summaries, he told me (paraphrasing) "that he could not help himself, as Brian Peppers Day only comes once a year." Gen von. Klinkerhoffen under any name is not here to contribute to the project constructively, as is evident from his wikilawyering and other forms of rules lawyering to try and get himself unblocked. It was originally just his edit warring, but now it's because he has not let go of this fact. Klinkerhoffen is not necessary for the improvement of this encyclopedia, and he has most certainly become a troll.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have trouble advocating for this individual, and come here because this was pointed out to me. I discussed the issue at hand with Ryulong and Klinkerhoffen in #wikipedia, and felt there may have been a case in his defense. The problem I have after the discussion is that Klinkerhoffen represented the following statements: that he intended to continue removing what he deemed pornography from the website, and that because there was no concensus for the images in question, they should not be placed (contrary, they were placed and given no concensus for removal or replacement). To his defense, "wikilawyering" is about all any blocked user really has to help themselves, and he does seem to have put forth a sincere effort at trying to get back on the right way, post sock-puppeting of course.

In the end, though I'm leery, I don't doubt that he will be watched upon reinstatement, and it is the newest users that tend to make the hardest mistakes. The motivation to sign up and contribute is one that I believe gives users a personal feeling to what they do, and hence the number of 3RR issues, odd entries, etc. we see from new users (and the number of contested speedy deletes, etc.). In my time of wikivigilantiasm, i've seen a lot more concerning users last through more. He's been blocked for some time, knows that when we block, we back it up, and, hey WP:AGF until he proves otherwise. Be nice to the newbies. PS, Steak and a Blowjob day only comes once in a year :) --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 02:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, based on a conversation that I missed through IRC, it appears that Klinkerhoffen is not here to contribute to the project, but remove what he deems pornographic in nature. He claims he wishes to voice his opinions on what problems Wikipedia has, but it is clear that he is only here to voice what problems he has with the project, which includes photographs (or images) of sexually explicit acts which he feels are pornography, despite the context. I stand firmly in my belief that this user will continue to act as such once the 3 month block on his IP is lifted and he is allowed to edit, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not find out sooner and let him demonstrate intent by action? Though I don't like his statement, the context makes it seem like something that was kneejerk. Just hand him a polite notice saying "you may wish to avoid this topic entirely for a while." If it weren't for the Brian Peppers comment, I presume the block would have been much shorter to begin with, and we'd actually know by means of escalating blocks instead of spending all this time debating the issue. To some extent, now we're just wikilawyering. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 16:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If it were not for the Brian Peppers comments, I would not have performed any block. I would have simply directed him to WP:NOT#CENSOR. But his use of those were a glaring "I'm not here to be productive" sign.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

From my admittedly limited interactions with this person, it seems they are intent on imposing their views regarding "pornographic" content in articles and are unwilling to abide by consensus when it does not suit their views. While you could make a case that the original block was overly harsh, I have seen nothing to indicate they will refrain from disruptive behavior. —dgies^t_c 05:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO, this person is likely the most prolific sockpuppeteer since PoolGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I do not believe Wikipedia would be better off with him - it seems that he is treating Wikipedia as a "political platform" of some sorts, and IMO no amount of policy citation will make him change his ways. I recomment applying WP:RBI to him should he resurface. TML 08:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[de-indent] Posting here to avoid archival. IRC query log with Gen. von K. here. ~Crazytales (Hasta la Pasta!) 20:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've spoken with them a few times -- didn't always realize it was them, even, until later. They seem intelligent and largely reasonable, which would generally lead me to favor unblocking. I'm very, very leery, however, of how easily they justify creating a small army of sockpuppets, and of what seems to be an "anti-porn crusade." You asked whose definition of "good taste" they would be applying, and unfortunately the read I get from them is "mine and no one else's, discussion be damned." If they indicate a clear willingness to discuss things and abide by consensus, I'd be a lot more comfortable -- to channel things into more of an "I have a strong opinion, so let's discuss this and see if we can resolve it" attitude, perhaps. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Is it time to suggest the inevitable?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Asahi Shimbun

The article Asahi Shimbun, which was canvassed on comment in a popular Japanese blog [10], has since that comment, which suggested that to let people know of the "Asahi problem" (which in turn supposedly would help the situation on the Comfort women article, which was canvassed in the actual blog post), this article too should be edited. I have not removed the poorly written English, because I know Asahi Shimbun actually have been involved in some controversies, but when I tag the article as "disputed neutrality" and the controversies section as "not properly referenced" and "totally disputed", my edits get reverted by the same user every time, User:DDRG. He is a single purpose account who has only edited any article beside Asahi Shimbun (or its talkapge) once - and that was to participate in a revert war (Japan-Korea relations). I would like to see this user warned, his behaviour is not acceptable. Mackan 11:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You are doing personal attack with false reason. Those were written at least in last year in Japanese wikipedia. Stop parsonal attacking. You are faffing my translation tasks. It's a holding action for Wikipedia community. Please warn Mackan for his parsonal attacking. DDRG 11:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't read Japanese, so can't check the sources myself, but the section of the article does seem to be disputed. I'll restore the tag at least until there is some genuine effort to reach consensus or compromise. By the way, please focus on the content of the article, not whether the other party is "behaving childishly" or performing "criminal act"s. The language issue is probably adding to the confusion here, so if you think the other person is writing something that attacks you personally, please assume that it's a language problem, and don't respond in kind. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Although I think Mackan is a rather combative and rude as they said here[[11]]. I have completed all citations though they were in Japanese. But there isn't any published translation of the newspaper. So I do best efforts. And if you can use translator, please read here [[12]]. What I did is only making a translation of some paragraphes of Japanse wiki. Those facts are very famous in Japan, and I think Mackan also knows them because he opposed only about citations manner. But those manner is same as The New York Times. What I can do next? And he did again the revert in antagonism to Administrators' arbitration. I think he has reached the end of our tether. DDRG 03:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse asked me for some help since I'm slightly proficient in Japanese, but I'm not exactly sure what the dispute is about and what sources need to be checked. Then again, my Japanese is not what it used to be (10 years ago, I was nearly fluent), so I'm not sure how much I can help. howcheng {chat} 06:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if you just posted on the talk page. BTW, AnonEmouse, I am fluent in Japanese. Mackan 07:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear howcheng. If you can read Japanese, please read Japanese wiki Asahi shinbun [[13]] and compare the paragraphes. And please give evidence that what I want do is only to make translations of the facts in which there are no controversy in Japanese Wiki, and Mackan is obstructing my right conducts for some reason and is also obstructing the development of Wikipedia community. DDRG 21:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales's requested poll nearly done - please see

Jimbo Wales requested a poll to gauge community thoughts on the Wikipedia:Attribution merger. A poll for this is being crafted, and is somewhat close to done. Concensus for the past 24 hours (with the occasional dissenting voice of course) that the thing is close to done. Only the main question is still heavily debated. A pre-poll straw poll is here:

Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll/Archive2#Q1 Straw poll duration

To sort that out. Accepted group concensus seems to be to pre-poll to 4/1/07 22:00 and then launch a site-wide poll (again, as implied/requested by Jimbo) at 4/2/07 00:00. Please help hash out the wording for that last quesion. - Denny 13:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, and please feel free to disregard it, but... am I the only one who thinks a poll on 4/1/7 is just BEGGING for problems? It seems to me that doing anything on April Fools Day gives ammunition to whichever "group" doesn't prevail on it... <whine> "But it was done on April Fool's Day! It can't be any good!" </whine> Philippe 03:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Leaving ANY article on Wikipedia open to editting on 1 April is begging for problems. Rumor has it that the developers will protect every Wikipedia page on that date for at least 24 hours (maybe longer to reflect that days starts at different times across the world) including Wikipedia/sandbox. Except for one Talk page, just to see if anyone can find it. I hope I'm wrong. -- llywrch 21:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

multiple ip addresses contributing the same spam

Hi, I'm not sure how to give out a proper set of warnings to this character: User_talk:87.167.233.5, 87.167.215.187, User talk:87.167.220.117, 87.167.230.46, and User talk:87.167.239.105 among others. The vandalism/spam can be found [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], and [28]. He continues to argue his point about the genre of the article [29], [30], and also at the album article [31], [32], [33], and [34]. Which is why I haven't reported him or her as a vandal. He or She has received five warnings total on different IP addresses, they are listed above. I've tried to rationalise/compromise with him or her, however, he or she has not understood that changing the genre over and over again will only make more work and load for the wikipedia people and servers. Should I put future warnings on every IP address talk page? That seems quite daunting. I await your advice on this matter. Thank you for your time.--JUDE ^talk 18:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Figuring semi-protection is the way to go -- hopefully forces discussion. I saw a few other anon editors, but they also seemed to be participating in this revert war, so not sure how much of a concern locking the page down is. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Is it time to nuke the unreferenced Power Pop article? Guy (Help!) 08:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I wish.--JUDE ^talk 20:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Dog_Man311 - claims to be the user behind banned User:Animeguy99

Noticed this user while looking at newly created pages. User page here states: To Wikipedia Staff: Do not ban. This is a new account created by the guy behind Animeguy99. I looked up Animeguy99 (talk · contribs) and found them to be a banned user. Very unusual. --EarthPerson 22:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this "unusual"; I bet cops & judges hear this kind of defense all of the time. Unpersuasive, & more than a little sad, maybe. How about renaming this section "No comment"? -- llywrch 20:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Matt57 and WP:STALK

I have reason to believe that Matt57 is Wikistalking. The first occurrence was this:[35], where he edits a page which I had been editing for quite some time, and he does not contribute to improving the article. Instead, he accuses me of trolling and basicly acts like a troll himself because he is distracting from the main point of the talk page, which is to discuss improvements to the article, not my personal views. I left him a message on his talk page telling him not to stalk me [36]. His response? "um, i'm not wikistalking". So I left it alone, but then today (March 29, 2007) I find theses two edits of his as well:

• [37]
• [38]

Again, Matt57 has no history of editing any of these articles[39]. I notified him of these two edits as well, and he responds by telling me to assume good faith and not be paranoid[40]. So I'm putting this all here, so I can see whether other people agree that I'm paranoid or not. Thanks.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 22:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth: You started out a bit paranoid, but, yes, it does look like he's stalking you. (Following you from one article to another, criticizing you over what you said in the previous one) Where you're from and your views on the holocaust aren't relevant in an article about child pornography. What you said in CP isn't relevant in Lyndie England. What you said in LE isn't relevant to Pedophilia.

I'll be honest... some of those questions were even slightly disturbing to me... but I wouldn't go following you around citing each one into the next. Bladestorm 23:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bladestorm and other admins, KirbyTime is requesting pictures of CHILD PORN. I dont see how I could not respond to his request. Kirby, I should have complained to the authorities here when you personally attacked me by telling me to "GTFO" and abused other users as well ([41], [42]). You can be assured I will follow up quickly with any abuse from you from now on. Regarding your allegations of STALK, how can I not be expected to raise alarm for any editor (you) who is requesting pictures of child porn, requesting pictures of Lynnie England having sex with Graner and your most recent request was to add pictures relating to Pedophilia. If someone requests pictures for child porn, what do I, walk past silently and say nothing? If anyone else raises objection to your requests for objectionable pictures on Wikipedia, are they stalking too? How am I then? The fact that I havent contributed to those articles doesnt mean that I cant participate on the Talk page of that article. Have I "stalked" any of your other edits? No I have not. I was simply very alarmed by your request to add pictures of Child Porn to Wikipedia and thus commented on that issue and other similiar requests. I dont see any other alternative way I could have dealt with this matter.--Matt57 23:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any confusion here, but just to make absolutely sure: I'm not an admin. I was merely offering the opinion of a regular editor. And it certainly wouldn't have necessarily been a bad idea to raise concerns about the requests through the appropriate channels.

However, saying that requesting kiddie porn isn't suprising just because he's from iran... or because he questions the holocaust... (I can understand you finding that offensive, but the holocaust and kiddie porn aren't in any way related) well, that's crossing the line. Especially the "This is not a surprise, considering Kirbytime is from Iran" part. That's downright racist and despicable.

And if the requests concerned you so much, you should have dealt with them through proper channels, not followed him from one article to another insulting him. I'm not saying kirby's a saint. I'm just agreeing that your own conduct was wrong; and nothing kirby might have done can change that. Bladestorm 23:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well, I suppose if Ahmed Dijenedad came here himself and edited Wikipedia and denied the holocaust and requested pictures of child porn, I could'nt refer to that editing activity as well. What can I say about the freedom of expression here. Fine I will let people like Kirby request more pictures of child porn from now on and let everyone else deal with these requests. I was about to come here and warn Kirbytime for telling to "GTFO", I regret I shouldnt have been so forgiving. I'll agree with some of the points you raised about my comments on Kirby but again, this is someone who has denied the holocuast and requested pictures of Child Porn. Is there no Wikipedia policy to deal with people like that? You can see the talk page of the Child Porn issues where OTHER people have pulled out their hair besides me, telling Kirby that this is not appropriate. Ok, from now on, I will not refer to any past activity of Kirby, except where making abuse complaints. That helps?--Matt57 23:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, I was going to reply to this, but it occurred to me that you never responded to the allegation of equating iranian descent with pedophilia. I really think that's more important than the rest of the issues. Bladestorm 23:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to it if you had read my response fully. Anyway, others too are finding Kirby's requests for Child Porn pictures disturbing and that is basically what I had done too. I will not continue this discussion further unless an administrators requires me to. --Matt57 01:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

When I first saw those articles, I was surprised they didn't have any pictures, given that we have pederasty, lolicon, etc. full of pictures. In any case, it is totally irrelevant. How I personally feel about a subject is wholly irrelevant to my intention of improving the article.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 00:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, you wrote, "KirbyTime is requesting pictures of CHILD PORN. I dont see how I could not respond to his request." Are you sure you wanted to use those exact words? If so, I for one can easily resist responding to his request: I don't have any child porn, nor would I share with someone posting to Wikipedia. (For one thing, the guy might be a cop -- or worse, ex-congressman Mark Foley.) -- llywrch 20:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bladestorm that Matt is stalking. The first diff Kibrytime provided makes this clear for example. Posting this diff [43] on a talk page of an article to which Matt had never edited contributed before can be only stalking. --Aminz 00:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

While it is really disturbing that Kirby requests such pictures, I cannot help but notice that the first diff is incredibly prejudiced. Matt57, you should be ashamed. The Behnam 01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Matt, while I did agree with you on your talk page that I found Kirby's requests for pictures disgusting, that diff The Behnam provided is very embarrassing. It is perfectly fine to disagree with Kirby (I do myself), but equating it to the fact that he is Iranian is way out of line. MetsFan76 01:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My main point was that he had denied the holocaust. I respect many people from Iran, including Ali Sina, Parvin Darabi but I am strongly critical of anyone who denies the holocuast. I apologize if I came across as racist, that was definitely not my belief and intention. --Matt57 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And the problem is that I don't reject the Holocaust. That's the whole reason I even care about this issue.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 01:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

But you did request that the article be moved to "Allegations of the Holocaust." Kirbytime may be trying to make a WP:POINT regarding the depictions of Muhammad issue. And Matt's comment about pedophilia and Iran may stem from the fact that Iran's supreme leader declared that all sexual acts but penetration are legal with children of any age, and penetration of children aged nine and up is perfectly legitimate. Arrow740 02:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow the specific edicts of the Supreme Leader so I don't know anything about the accuracy of that, but none of this justifies a racist attack on Iranians. The Behnam 03:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What? Depictions of Muhammad? How am I making a WP:POINT? Can you expand on that because I have no idea what you are talking about. And also, my sexual preferences are none of your business. And, I believe you may be referring to the former Supreme Leader, not the current one. Either case, I'm not a Muslim so I don't give a shit what some old guy in a beard says.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 03:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirby, please be civil and do not use language like "I dont give a shit". --Matt57 03:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that the trolling accusation seems grounded in conspiracy thinking, as far as a 'payback' for Mohammad issues. The Behnam 03:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is that incivil language? Are you offended by it? If you say yes, I will stop.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 09:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Block review

Sexandviolencemovie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), all edits are spam, promoting Bloodstained Memoirs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I blocked indef. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the block...Spam is still vandalism... --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 10:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an accurate read of their intentions -- the article, in particular, was deleted multiple times over the span of what looks to be two days, and I see multiple warnings and attempts to head them off from advertising like so. I took a look and couldn't find any edits unrelated to promoting the film, so far. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Don Murphy

Don Murphy has taken a dislike to User:BigDT, see www.donmurphy.net/board/showthread.php?t=17898 - not sure what, if anything, we should do, but it would probably make sense to get more eyes on that article as a first step. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[44] makes it look like he is, or was, interesting in stalking BigDT / taking to RL. It seems to have calmed down, but I don't know. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Matrix17

This editor is seemingly on a one man/woman trolling spree at present, with repeated incivility, personal attacks, failure to assume good faith and bizarre AfD !votes. See - [45][46] [47][48] [49][50] [51][52][53][54] and also User talk:JzG. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've left a warning on his talkpage, though I'm not sure how effective that will be because I've interacted with this editor before and I suspect he believes I have something personal against him. He was blocked about a week ago for similar interactions with other editors in conjuncture with some WP:POINT violations. Might be worth an uninvolved admin looking into this though or maybe even a User RfC/mentoring solution as Matrix seems to keep getting into conflicts with other editors.--Isotope23 16:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It also appears there is a bit of User:JzG stalking by Matrix17 going on here after JzG AfD nominated one of Matrix17's articles.--Isotope23 16:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been brought up before. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

All the latest diffs were in the last couple of hours, so unless you're referring to it being part of an ongoing problem it hasn't. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean his behavior has been an ongoing problem. Sorry for the confusion, I wasn't referring to this specific event. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This user hasn't crossed the line completely yet, but he goes to great effort to attempt to hide any warnings or comments he doesn't agree with on his user talk page. He archives these types of comments within minutes and is quick with an abusive reply to any criticism. Hatch68 20:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:EECEE at Swift Vets and POWs for Truth

I am working on upgrading the inline hyperlinks at Swift Vets and POWs for Truth to citation templates. During the course of this, I ran across a small section at the end of Swift Vets and POWs for Truth#Book which I felt was a clear violation of WP:SYN, so I removed it. I had a minor content dispute with EECEE, and I decided to compromise by adding a {{or}} tag to the statement, and move on. EECEE has now removed that tag twice, here, and here. She seems to not understand that the purpose of the tag is to elicit further opinion from the community. Apparently, she does not want further opinion beyond her one hand-picked admin, who has not responded yet. I intend to put in quite a few hours on this article, improving the citations. If I see something problematic, like OR, I intend to flag it so that others can provide consensus. I'm not going to even bother improving the citations if people who think that they own the article are going to revert my tags. Can someone please tell this editor that I have the right to place an {{or}} tag on a passage that even she admits is in dispute? It's really starting to piss me off, and I'm not sure my civility will hold out much longer. - Crockspot 17:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not a he. Second, I didn't "handpick" Gamaliel any more than you did. He or she is simply the only administrator I have seen post on the page recently, unless Derex is also an administrator. I welcome the input of any other administrator who cares to comment. I'm sure looking at the discussion at the "Talk" page will explain it all much better than I could. --EECEE 17:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This looks an awful lot like a content dispute...--Isotope23 17:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

At this point, the dispute is simply over whether or not it is appropriate to add/remove an OR tag from a passage in dispute. I'm not looking for a ruling on whether the content is OR, I just want my tag to stay so that others can add their opinion to the consensus. And I apologize to EECEE for referring to her as he all this time. Should have said something sooner. (gender references corrected above). - Crockspot 17:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Crock wrote: "Should have said something sooner." Really? How many times HAVE you referred to me as "he"? Never mind, I'm sure it's all my fault. --EECEE 21:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Habbo Hotel raid

Resolved

Per edit at Habbo Hotel's talk page, I reverted vandalism. The contributor, User:TalHurner, has a userpage that is purely vandalism and filled with spammed images. It needs to be deleted and prevented from being recreated. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And the contributions are not too helpful, either. If there are any outstanding vandalisms, I'll revert, but his userpage is impossible to navigate through. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, reported instead to WP:AIV. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as a vandal only account.--Isotope23 18:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Incivility and harrassment by User:Trigam41

This use has been blocked for seven days for malicious page moves but I still wanted to bring the issue up here in case he continues at the end of his seven day banning. The user began by created an article that I tagged for speedy deletion. He then removed the SD tag and it was replaced by User:Hatch68. The article was then deleted. Trigam41 then recreated (you can see the log here; it is now protected from recreation). It then appears the user began a vendetta against Hatch68 and myself. He began vandalizing articles that I frequently edit ([55], [56], [57]). I placed warnings on his talk page but he removed them. He then started making accusations at me on my talk page and he deleted my response on his talk page. He then moved my user page and Hatch68's user page. This is when I reported him to WP:AIV and he was blocked. It appears now he is leaving inappopriate comments on Hatch68's blog and this editor has placed Hatch68's personal information on his blog. Hatch68 has blanked his user page in an effort to prevent this editor from getting any more of his information. Again, action has already been taken on this editor, but this should serve as a reference of his actions if he comes back.↔NMajdan•talk 19:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The user has e-mailed me saying "I don't understand. What do you mean by "moving pages"? I have only been trying to report a user for abuse. NMajdan has been sending innapropriate comments and deleting information from Wikipedia. How can I report him?".

I find it unlikely that the user was really trying to report NMajdan when his was moving his page around: [58]. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This person has frightened my wife and made comments on my blog and my son's blog that have since been deleted by my wife. I contacted the Nashville police department this morning, but it doesn't seem to be a high enough level of harassment to justify a police report at this time. I realize that my address is not that hard to find, but to take a simple deletion of a wiki article to this level indicates a potentially unstable person in my opinion. Hatch68 19:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What do people think of my idea of increasing User:Trigam41's block to indefinite per this continuing harassment? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything that actually ties this editor to that blog? I agree, if this can be conclusively proven, the fact that someone would take an on-wiki incident off wiki in this way would definitely warrent a longer block.--Isotope23 19:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you do a google search for Trigam41, this website is the first result. Under Sites and Blogs I Author is a blog called "Kevin's Blo..." That is the blog in question.↔NMajdan•talk 19:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... that is what I was looking for. I'm going ahead and implementing HighInBC's idea. There is no reason to allow this editor to return to editing if they are going to carry a deletion dispute off wiki to the point of slandering another editor. I don't know if Blogspot would do anything, but you might want to contact them Hatch68...--Isotope23 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to drive the issue in the ground here. I'm ready to completely forget about it. If you want one final key piece of evidence, refer to a statement by Trigam41 that he made on his own talk page in reply to me: "The only personal attacks I made were on your blog and were not affiliated with Wikipedia." Hatch68 20:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Silly trolls

I appear to have found myself a troll. Shadowstar5 arrived and made silly edits and trolling comments...nothing productive at all...so he was blocked. Immediately thereafter Luckye arrived making the same kinds of edits. He, too, was blocked. Luckye also created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/irishguy which is silly as I already am an admin. I'm not sure what to do with that. Should it just be deleted or what? IrishGuy ^talk 20:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits suggest he isn't interested in contributing productively, so I think the blocks were appropriate. Don't forget to tag the user and user talk pages with {{indef}}. Picaroon 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

An odd one

Please review the contribs of Biochemical Mind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), looking at Erinacine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Herical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Phosphorylserine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Check this version of his userpage and this talk page edit. I initially thought I was dealing with a scientist with limited social skills when he came to OTRS, but following the recent message where he asks (for the third or fourth time) to be given the ability to lock the contents of Erinacine before the FDA gets angry, despite being told at least twice that it won't happen and why, the kook alarm is now ringing. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his edits, I think it is in good faith. One of his edits puts a link to FDA, saying the article hasn't been endorsed or somewhat by the FDA - which is true, but perhaps we have to point him to Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, in that case? x42bn6 Talk 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

eh? --Fredrick day 21:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. x42bn6 Talk 22:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems entirely appropriate. Interestingly, the obsession with incognito royalty ([59], [60]) echoes Nikolai Gogol (Diary of a Madman), or perhaps the commentator of Nabokov's Pale Fire. MastCell ^Talk 22:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Nochnich

Resolved

 – Indefblocked as vandalism only account. Sandstein 21:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nochnich (talk · contribs) has been been removing links to Spain and/or replacing them with links to Catalonia. I have left two messages on his/her talk page advising them against this, but such messages were removed and called "fascist". I have no intention of playing a 3RR game, so I am alerting the community at large. Olessi 21:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Next time, WP:AIV is faster. Sandstein 21:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and 3RR block evasion by User:Yahya01

Resolved

Yahya01 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 24 hours for WP:3RR violations in Lahore Resolution. However, he is constantly evading the block via anonymous IP edits.

Also, he made derogatory comments and hate-speech (on religion) while making personal attacks in reply to a simple request for WP:V and some other references (which, by the way, had NOTHING to do with any religions at all). I'm quoting from his remarks

The way you have quoted Banglapedia and then quickly tried to do rv without discussion shows that you are clearly a dishonest person. I suppose this is what your Sunni religion teaches you…defend your religion’s “honour” at all cost no matter what the facts are. Good for you.. You probably deserve this religion.

I request an extension of his block for sockpuppetry and immediate block of the anonymous socks. For conflict of interest, I am not doing it myself. So, I request a non-involved admin to look into this and act accordingly. Thanks. --Ragib 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that, Yahya01 has a history of making similar hate speech. Examples include this (which is amazing, given that it's in response to the comment I think the article is the poorer for listing the many degrees and awards, which all major scientists accumulate but which are not listed in biographies. It is considered in poor taste). More examples abound in his edit history. --Ragib 21:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've extended Yahya's block to 96 hours. Rama's arrow 22:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:薫田権之助

Resolved

Can somebody take a look at this user. They have created several articles, none of which are in English, deleted here. They also left me a message here. For now I'm assuming that their grasp of English is not that good. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That message he left either says "I use Japanese" or "You should use Japanese". Stupid pronoun dropping languages, online translators can't manage them. -Amarkov moo! 22:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It says, "Use Japanese!!!" It's the command form. Not very polite. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Left me another one. Still creating articles. I don't want to block if they don't understand but if they are just copy and pasting from the Japanese Wikipedia then I'm not much for letting them troll either. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, the username is inappropriate. I'm assuming those are some sort of Japanese characters, but it just shows up at User:????? for me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, you get to explain that to the people who argue vehemently that names in any script should be allowed. :P -Amarkov moo! 22:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol, Babelfish stinks. New message from the guy:

Japanese use! ! ! Therefore Japanese being able to use, you say, you take and the ろ! ! ! The ど - it has become! ! ? Moving has become the ど -! ! ? Protect securely! ! ! The あ it is to do, to escape, it is not done to hide, because how it is not promised! ! ! The way you remember and dissolve! ! ! The ぅ which is - it is the ゎ ぃ ぱ! ! ! There is no air which is protected after all! ! ! The あ it is to do, judgment! ! ! Obtaining ぇ! ! ?

-Amarkov moo! 22:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Two issues. Should the user name be allowed - definitely not. And are his contributions constructive - not in my view. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur on both counts, though the user should be gently informed that this is the English Wikipedia, and his contributions may be valued more at the Japanese edition. Chris cheese whine 22:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur, but it is completely unquestionable that the username will be allowed, because for some reason people don't want to ban non-Roman usernames. -Amarkov moo! 22:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Name permitted, but user acting silly. Reccommend block, and ask ja-wiki folks to come get their escaped vandal (or merely a playful kitsune? ;-) later in their morning! --Kim Bruning 22:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

He(?) left me a message with the headline "無題", which apparently means "No title", and then a bunch of yelling. I've also checked some of their edits, and they are all copies of articles from ja.wiki, so they do know about the Japanese Wikipedia already. They're either some sort of interlingual troll or very, very confused. I say we block them and then find someone who speaks Japanese well and have them figure it out. --tjstrf talk 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

One of his comments to me was "At 9 o'clock, 4 futons." I've blocked him and gave him a message in English and Babelnese.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"9時から布団4枚!!!" = "Four futons from 9 o'clock!!!". Um...yeah. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Linking him to the Japanese blocking policy might be helpful here. (Assuming they have a section on blocking people for being disruptive.) --tjstrf talk 23:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

He understands English. As soon as I left this they stopped creating articles. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Keeping it simple, I see :-) Chris cheese whine 23:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask someone to take a look at this, although it does just look like simple trolling. Grandmasterka 04:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone looked at it and has determined that, whoever it is, they are seemingly just bored and have nothing better to do. I endorse Ryulong's block. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This person knows about speedy deletion templates. Probably some banned vandal we've blocked before... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grandmasterka (talk • contribs) 04:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

User:Carirach

Resolved

 – Or seems to be, for now. --User:Luna Santin 00:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this user page is probably in violation of WP policy: User:Carirach --Sanfranman59 23:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It was blanked, and now it's been deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Is this the appropriate way to request action of this type or should I have used some other method? --Sanfranman59 01:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:JB196 back again

Resolved

Here, anyone want to handle the blocking please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, plus four more socks and five pages fully protected to stop the onslaught of spamming. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Matthew's test

Matthew, who is having major problems with Andrew Van De Kamp, from its images to its references, seems to have created a user account that mirrors the article exactly, at User:Matthew's test. I have no idea why, but it seems inappropriate. Is this elegible for speedy? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

He obviously meant to create a subpage. Move it to User:Matthew/test, delete the redirect, and tell him how to create subpages properly in the future. --tjstrf talk 00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this is unintentional... Matthew has been around long enough that I'm pretty sure he knows how to create a subpage... anyway, tjstrf's suggestion is a good one kill the images though; no fairuse rationale for a user subpage.--Isotope23 00:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Matthew knows very well how to use subpages - hence my bafflement. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if he does know how, how little absent-mindedness would it take to accidentally type in Matthew's test rather than Matthew/test? People make similar mistakes all the time with categories and the like. What sort of weird motivation would there possibly be to intentionally misplace it anyway? --tjstrf talk 01:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

He didn't create the page by accidental typing, he created the account. I don't know why, I just thought I'd bring to administrative attention cos, as you said, it's a bit weird. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I nuked all the incorrectly used fairuse images. Other than that, he is free to have an alternate account if he so chooses...--Isotope23 01:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second, he actually made an account for that. I figured it out now, he's messing with his monobook settings. [61] --tjstrf talk 01:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like he used his monobook to convert all the episode references to cite episode templates, which he then inserted here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Choolabuuulba and User:Booooomerang. Sockpuppets of User:Danny Daniel and User:Choolabuuula

Before I could get on to reporting these two users, you probably should know who Danny Daniel is. Danny Daniel is a user who vandalized pages related My Gym Partner's a Monkey and Zatch Bell!. His confirmed sockpuppets like to create hoaxes and vandalise articles related to The Fairly OddParents, My Gym Partner's a Monkey, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, Re-Animated and anything related to anime. He created a hoax article called Monk (Cartoon Network). All of this would eventually get him blocked indefinitely for vandalism on December 21, 2006. See this Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Danny Daniel for more information about this vandal.

I already notified User talk:Persian Poet Gal about this, but she says that she can't log on right now, so I decided to report this here. Anyways, I found two possible sockpuppets of Danny Daniel. They are Choolabuuulba (talk · contribs) and Booooomerang (talk · contribs). Both of these accounts have similar editing patterns to that indefinitely blocked user. In fact, Choolabuulba even edited a page created by Booooomerang adding on to the hoax with more misinformation and lies. Choolabuulba also edited List of characters from My Gym Partner's a Monkey, which is a page Danny Daniel's sockpuppets seem to edit frequently ([62], [63], [64], [65]). Danny Daniel's edits can be traced back as far as September 2006, three months before the name Danny Daniel was registered.. Both seem to be vandal-only accounts. To top it all off, Boooomerang has created a hoax page called Jeanie Meanie Minnie Mo. Note how it seems to relate to the television shows The Fairly OddParents, Ed, Edd n Eddy (see the parts about Jib), and Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. Danny Daniel's sockpuppets seem to "like" creating hoaxes like that.

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Danny Daniel shows some other suspected sockpuppets of Danny Daniel that were reported to a checkuser, but most of them were considered "inconclusive." Even User:Jibbity was considered to be inconclusive. Squirepants101 00:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more edits directed at My Gym Partner's a Monkey. [66], [67], [68], [69]. Squirepants101 00:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Assistance with Samir Ali.xls

Resolved

This article has been recreated by the original creator, after a previous CSD A7. Could I please request assistance to get the creating user temporarily blocked or banned, since He was warned firstly by me not to take the tags off tje article. Not vandalism technically speaking, so don't know where else to go. Thor Malmjursson 04:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Samir Ali.xls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and File:Samir Ali.xls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) are both deleted again now. Author warned. If reoccurring, just use {{db}}. Sandstein 06:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Mmbabies gave away his password

Just before the community ban on Mmbabies (talk · contribs · block log) was enacted, he asked Chrislk02 to unblock him--and disclosed his password! If someone would be so kind as to reset it so he won't be able to use that account again, it would be much appreciated. Blueboy96 06:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The account is blocked from editing, hence rendering this point moot with the exception of telling us to delete personal information. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Weird one - User:Anynobody holding my words up to ridicule without attribution or context

OK, this is weird. A while back I got angry at User:Anynobody making an issue of my religion in his every objection or disagreement that we had over editing and wikipedia policy. I blew my stack and let loose with some choice words, diff. I jokingly asked for some personal data on him so I could "return the favor". As in, "You are misapplying WP:V because you are a [fill in the blank]" as he had been doing with me. Obviously I did not expect him to give me any personal info. Anyway, now he has the quote up on his user page with my name redacted to poke fun at my words, here. I edited his page to add my name and a diff so that the context was clear. We had a discussion (see User talk:Justanother#Thought you'd be ashamed...) and the upshot was that he reverted it back to the way it was before, here. Before taking this to AN/I, I asked him nicely to remove the quote from his talk page if he will not provide proper attribution and context, here. He has been online there since but has not replied. I object to my words being used in this fashion without attribution or context but I do not know if I have the proverbial "leg to stand on" here. Any help/advice is appreciated. At best it is a little bit upsetting to me to have my words taken out of context and misrepresented on someone's user page. --Justanother 04:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the best place to put this. Consider WP:RFC more suitable, since you and him seem to be having a dispute. No administrative action is necessary. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with KZ ^{Talk • Contrib}. what about you Justanother? Anynobody 07:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've actually been discussing the possibility with several other editors who have had difficulty with Justanother and have invited them here to comment. Anynobody 08:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and all due respect to User:Kzrulzuall but a User RfC would be just a tad premature on my part as another editor has not yet stepped up to help me address my issue with User:Anynobody of the use of my words out of context and without attribution. If no other admin has better advice for me then I will just go the normal WP:DR route; no hurry. I would like some further admin input though. Thanks. --Justanother 08:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

An RFC is not warranted and would be a waste of time. Anynobody has confessed that the text was put there for "entertaining" purposes. It is blatant trolling and baiting. Anynobody should simply remove the comments from his/her userpage and stop using Wikipedia for his/her own personal entertainment and game playing. Sarah 11:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the text. I don't see that it improved the encyclopedia to have it there. FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anynobody. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. --Justanother 13:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have responded directly to Sarah, but I think it is worth a look to all involved here: User talk:Anynobody#Re: Misunderstanding. I really am trying to teach a lesson about not letting a PA get to you, so I'm going to put it back with a diff to Justanother's archive with the whole conversation like he asked.

Regarding an RfC, this is just the latest episode of disagreement between myself and Justanother that has been going on for about a month. In the beginning I suggested a RfC to resolve issues we disagreed with at that time. One was set up, and deleted thus not resolving anything. Now we're having disputes about previous disputes. I honestly believe that impartial editors will see Justanother's actions from the start of this dispute as unacceptable. I realize they may just as easily find my actions wrong, but at least I'd know for sure what the real facts are. Anynobody 02:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I have stated that I would accept the restoration of the quote with proper attribution and context (diff), I think the feeling here is that it is inappropriate use of your user page to have it there. For myself, I stand by those remarks as something that needed to be said to you at the time (and on my user page) and then to pass into history. For my part, I archived the relevant discussion early and out of sequence because I did not want such on my talk page even in its proper context. For you to want to enshrine it on your user page is a whole 'nother beast and I am not going to analyze your motives. I am simply going to request here, in front of all, that you do not put my words on your user page. Thank you. And please do not attempt to further query me on the subject; this is the entirety of my communication on that. And yes, I changed my mind and yes, I am saying something different now than I said earlier, after getting some input here. --Justanother 02:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not your place to decide what lessons other people need to be taught. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia. Sarah 07:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I must once again express that just because Justanother is embarrased about his statement should not be a reason to suppress it. As it was before he started editing on my user page nobody knew who said the quote. He chose to make evryone aware of the fact that it was he who said it. I guess he must've assumed the conversation it came from went differently than it did, because his evasion of WP:DR continued in that tone. When he first insisted on linking the quote I tried to refuse because I figured it would be more embarrassing than the quote itself. The fact is I'm trying to show how it's possible to maintain composure when somebody responds with a blatant WP:PA. please see the whole conversation and you tell me if it's really trolling to show this as an example to editors visiting my user page.

• Please keep in mind that I haven't set out to hurt anyone's feelings, which is why I didn't identify him in the first place, but I think it's an example of my ability to keep on subject.
• I was following WP:DR in trying to resolve a conflict, Justanother responded with a WP:PA.
• Rather than lower myself to his level I continued the discussion in a civil manner until he refused to talk anymore. Then he says it is ridiculing him by not identifying him.
• I disagreed with him, given how the conversation went and tried to advise him to remain anonymous Justanother's talk page again to save him from embarrasment.
• He sets up this notice stating that he wants me to delete or attribute it, after someone else deleted it I chose the latter.
• It was deleted again after I attributed it.

Essentially the message here is that he can make these statements and not be held accountable in any way. Moreover he can foil my attempt to show how I didn't fall for a blatant baiting attack because it makes him feel bad that he looks like an unreasonable editor.

• • Meanwhile he gets to mock my attempt at WP:DR openly here: JustaHulk.

Up until this point I've WP:AGF and assumed that everyone here has taken time to read up on the history here, but I'm starting to think perhaps nobody has. Please read my diffs, or read the entire conversation Justanother references in his. Anynobody 03:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[redacted] In case anyone missed it, how does any attribution or context make it ok to say to another editor? Anynobody 03:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother's comment to you several weeks ago was unacceptable. If I'd known of it at the time I would have addressed it. At this time, however, quoting from the incident on your talkpage is bordering on harassing. I have reverted the quotation again; please let this drop and do not restore it. Newyorkbrad 04:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad I don't want to give you the impression that I'm being difficult, but could you please explain how it's harassment to point out on my user page bad behavior and how to handle it? If you're saying that I didn't, then I'd be happy to hear how you think I could improve. I could see it being harassment if I was posting it on his page or in an article where he edits. So that I don't make the same mistake again I'd like to ask you to point out where I'm wrong in this sequence of events. (Also if I've missed something please don't hesitate to point it out):

• Please keep in mind that I haven't set out to hurt anyone's feelings, which is why I didn't identify him in the first place, but I think it's an example of my ability to keep on subject.
• I was following WP:DR in trying to resolve a conflict, Justanother responded with a WP:PA.
• Rather than lower myself to his level I continued the discussion in a civil manner until he refused to talk anymore. Then he says it is ridiculing him by not identifying him.
• I disagreed with him, given how the conversation went and tried to advise him to remain anonymous Justanother's talk page again to save him from embarrasment.
• He sets up this notice stating that he wants me to delete or attribute it, after someone else deleted it I chose the latter.
• It was deleted again after I attributed it.

Essentially the message here is that he can make these statements and not be held accountable in any way. Moreover he can foil my attempt to show how I didn't fall for a blatant baiting attack because it makes him feel bad that he looks like an unreasonable editor.

• • Meanwhile he gets to mock my attempt at WP:DR openly here: JustaHulk.

Did you only read the addition about what the comment in question was? I don't blame you if you did, were I in your shoes I'd probably want to get this done and move on to the next issue. Seriously though, if you take time to address my concerns it would save me making another similar mistake and being back here wasting your time again. Anynobody 05:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, as far as the use of your words on User:JustaHulk. I do not mock your words, they are mocking me and I am laughingly agreeing that I did, in the past, allow myself to rage against offensive editors. I am not going to do that anymore. Your quote is correctly attributed and a link to context is provided. I do not imply that there is anything "wrong" with your words. All that said, I will extend to you the same courtesy that I ask of you and I will promptly remove your words if you but request it. Thank you. --Justanother 13:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Virkshatriya's article moves

This user first appeared on 23rd march, where he edited the Nambiar (Nair Subcaste) article. I undid the changes and posted a notice on his talk page. This user reappeared today (March 30th, 2007) and has made numerous moves which appear to be blatant acts of vandalism. I have moved all the pages back to their original locations and prod'ed the other pages. The account appears to be used for nothing more than vandalism. He has really messed up some moves (moving talk pages to article pages and such, look at Nambiar - I had to directly copy the page over since I wasn't able to move it. I have posted a request on the Requested Moves page) and I think I've sort of fixed everything temporarily. I'd post a list of diffs of his contributions but just looking at his contributions should be enough. It's all vandalism. --vi5in^[talk] 20:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - He seems to have stopped for now, but I am not sure if he will come back again or not. I forgot to add before, but the articles are "sub-caste names" from the Indian state of Kerala. I am not sure yet if they deserve to be article in their own right since they don't seem to be anything more than stubs. But that's another discussion; the problem is that he is moving them to improperly spelt articles, or names that simply do not make sense, or are offensive. Is this grounds (prolific, disruptive article moves) enough to block this user? --vi5in^[talk] 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This user is back and making numerous page moves again...including moving a user page to mainspace. I know absolutely nothing about the topics that are being moved, and have no opinion about whether or not they are correct. I just thought I'd point out the moves since I remembered seeing this section here. --Onorem 04:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This user has now moved the userpages of both the reporting editor and Rama's Arrow, who issued a warning when this was first posted, into mainspace articles. I don't know what the article titles mean, but I now have no doubt that this user is only being disruptive at this time. --Onorem 04:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Virkshatriya has been indefinitely blocked. I tried to clean up after the page move vandalism, but some of it will need an admin. Note that Virkshatriya moved Nair to Thiyyar but Nair was subsequently edited. They also moved Nadar (caste) to Parayans; a well-intentioned new user has pasted the original content into Nadar Caste and redirected Nadar (caste) there. —Celithemis 09:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Psantora

Please do something about User:Psantora's edit on UW System. He has kept adding copyvio images to the article, deleting useful references and wikify unnecessary dates. I've talked to him. But he refused to stop. Miaers 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats funny, you said nothing about copyvios and I've tried to add more people to the discussion and you reverted all these changes (in violation of 3RR as well). Thanks for getting more attention on this. Paul^C/_T+ 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I indicated them in my edit comment, your talk page and added copyvio tag to these photos. 3RR doesn't apply to removing copyvio images and vandalism.Miaers 22:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You made the copyvio allegations to the images at the following times:

• 17:18, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:21630.jpg (top)
• 17:18, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:12b.jpg (top)
• 17:17, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Nh1.jpg (top)
• 17:16, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Camp9.jpg (top)
• 17:15, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Parksidefall.jpg (top)
• 17:15, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Dempsey 8.jpg (top)
• 17:14, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Hsc20outside.jpg (top)
• 17:13, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:111123156.jpg (→Licensing) (top)

Our discussions were previous to these edits (as early as 16:20), so I knew nothing of any possible copyright violations. In addition, your edit just before you made these copyright violation claims on these images explicitly says the images are "fine". To be honest I couldn't care less about the images, I was just working with what was on the page. You never said anything about copyright violations on my talk page and didn't mention copyright violations in edit comments until your most recent (4th) revert on the page at 17:21. I've already refuted your "deleting useful references" and "wikify unnecessary dates" allegations on my talk page. Paul^C/_T+ 23:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Miaers was blocked for 2 weeks due to repeated violations of 3RR. Paul^C/_T+ 09:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Appalling personal attack by Ned Scott

See here:

"Quack... what the fuck is wrong with you? No, really, what the fuck is wrong with you? Pull your head out of your ass and stop making everything a damn problem. (and to everyone who wants to yell WP:CIVIL at me, shut up, it had to be said). I am surprised at how patient everyone has been with you, Quack, but don't you be surprised when other people start breaking down like I just did. -- Ned Scott 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)"

Quack gets on my nerves sometimes, but honestly. - Denny 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well... I was thinking something similar really loudly, but I held back from saying it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack has been trying hard to be collegial since many of us called him to task. He talks things now rather than edit wars, but when no one opposed things Quack proposed and then did them, i.e. removing a merge tag on an article, Ned Rv'd him and flipped. Ned is wildly hung up on the Wikipedia community article, and I believe mad at Quack from supporting the article when he previously opposed it. - - Denny 00:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Some root of this here, where Ned Scott reverts essentially a good edit that QuackGuru had done. --Kickstart70-T-C 00:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to excuse Ned Scott's commentary but I'll be honest and say that my thinking follows User:HighInBC. User:QuackGuru's actions surrounding the Essjay controversy article have been trying, even you yourself Denny Colt have been on this board a number of times reporting about his behavior. (→Netscott) 00:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, Scott, but jeez. Quack is as human as any of us. - Denny 00:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I snapped, I shouldn't have, but damn man, I'm not a machine. -- Ned Scott 00:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=117642711&oldid=117614259 This editor has snapped before at me. - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 00:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm being completely honest here, that was my reaction to the article itself. I wasn't even thinking about who edited the article (I didn't know who was majority involved or not, nor did I care). Sorry Quack, you weren't even on my mind when I did that redirect and gave the edit summary.-- Ned Scott 02:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack has been bringing up the same issues day after day and week after week when he was soundly denied previously, and especially on the issue of whether Sanger is founder/cofounder/community manager/whatever-it-is-he-did that really doesn't matter because it has nothing to do with the article in question at all, his actions have basically been a really lethargic form of revert warring against consensus. We don't allow people to revert constantly to their preferred version of the article normally, we shouldn't let them keep reverting against consensus just because they put a couple days in between insertations either. Can we say "Bad boy, Ned Scott" and be done with this incident report? --tjstrf talk 00:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It was already discussed at length on the talk page. I was going with consensus with my good edit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=next&oldid=114862436 Here was the compromised edit which was discussed at length on the talk page. Please check the talk page history for the consensus discussion. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 00:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, a dispute over a single letter is extremely juvenile and lame. Both of you, knock it off. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANed_Scott&diff=119203803&oldid=119201828 After editor made gross comments at me another editor is inciting him by saying, You're my hero. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 06:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, please just post all the offending diffs in one post. No need to drag it on. To others, WP:LAME time? :-D --Iamunknown 06:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Lame, yes. This thread is functionally equivalent to poking a dog with a sharp stick until it bites, and then complaining to the owner when it bites you. The solution is for Quack to just... calm down. A lot. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Contraction Vandal

Recently, a vandal has been changing "do not", "will not", etc, into contractions, also removing spaces between the sentence punctuation and the beginning of the next sentence. 58.169.188.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Though all the damage has been undone, and this user has been warned, it turns out that another was doing the same thing up until the time he/she was warned: 124.185.157.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I ask that an administrator take appropriate action. (Currently checking to make sure 124.... edits were rv'd.) --Otheus 00:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely socks...similar vandal patterns and both traceroutes come from Brisbane. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 02:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The vandal started up again today. Thanks to user User:Rlevse for blocking. --Otheus 15:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Mass page moves

Please check out [70] and help out. Thanks, – Riana ^talk 09:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be taken care of.--cj | talk 10:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Bloody vandal...All reverted now. --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 10:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Got a couple...that seems to be the lot. Thanks, Riana. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?}

No worries, Kuntan playing silly buggers again, I suspect. – Riana ^talk 10:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, but on the bright side, I deleted my first featured article! What a nightmare... – Riana ^talk 10:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

On the serious side, page-move vandalism is not really something we should put up with. If this keeps going, would range-blocking the relevant IP be a possibility? Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't range-block IPs in the subcontinent, they tend to skip around a bit. Far too much chance for collateral damage, methinks. Of course, a ballsier admin might do it. – Riana ^talk 10:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Only if this becomes a persistent nuisance, obviously. One bored moron with time off pre April Fool's we can handle. Having said that, if collateral damage is a serious possibility then better not. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Virkshatriya

I've just come across a vandalistic page move by this editor; investigating, I found a huge number of such moves. I began to block th account before trying to clear up the mess, but found that it had alrready been blocked by Rama's Arrow (yet another case of the blocking admin not having the courtesy to let others know by leaving a notice, per the blocking instructions).

I then checked the string of page moves; some have been dealt with, but rather messily, many haven't. Could I ask for help in dealing with this please? In some cases, moves have been reverted, but not the associated Talk-pages (the redirects have been left in place and the redirected Talk pages speedily deleted). It would probably be a good idea to watch out for cut-and-paste reverts too. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be the same person as above. --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 11:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure, so I thought I'd keep it separate. If it is the same case, then there's een more work to be done. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

He's back as User:Rajeevmenon, redoing some of the same page moves. —Celithemis 11:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with Animeguy99?

Looks like Animeguy99 (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely for persistent copyright infringement. Looks like they are back as Dog Man311 (talk · contribs). How do I know? Because they freely admit to it! Their contribs so far admittedly lack any copyright infringement, but should I block them for block evasion anyway? Bubba hotep 11:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, no copyright infringement except maybe the image they uploaded... Bubba hotep 11:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems this is just an error with a license template though. They should have used {{albumcover}}. Anyway, I'm off now. If another admin feels like blocking pending further investigation, be my guest. Or, of course, we could assume good faith... Bubba hotep 11:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - if Animeguy99 was blocked for copyvio infringements then why has his copyvios not been deleted? They still have the public domain tags on them. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Either no one has cared to look, or they fall under a (not stated) logo Fair Use license. I've taken the liberty of tagging some for deletion or for no sources, but there are more if you feel like googling a bunch of image names. Logical2u_{Review me!} 17:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Jennie Cooper (talk · contribs)

Note: the following was moved here from WP:RFCN.

This userpage (and account) is an attack on me. My name is Jennie Cooper, and I am an admin at Wookieepedia. A few months ago, I was one of several admins who had banned a serial vandal. Since then, he (and possibly a group of his friends as well) has been going around to various wikis and using both "StarNeptune" and "Jennie Cooper" as names for their vandalism sprees, and this account is just the latest in a long line of attack pages. I asked an admin on IRC about the issue, and he said to bring it to this page, which I have now done.

Compare my userpage here to the one listed above, then take a look at the following:

• Link 1 (Doppelganger account created on Wookieepedia by me to prevent my name being stolen by vandals)
• Link 2 (Edit summary referring to me as a "Canadian cheesehead")
• Link 3 (A friendly greeting from the Mario Wiki informing me of the troll using my name to vandalize their wiki)
• Link 4 (Where they got the Asperger box from)
• Link 5 (Recent vandalization of my userpage)
• There are also two evidence links I cannot post due to the fact that they trigger Wikipedia's spam filter; If you need to see them, or need any more background information, contact me on my talk page. Thank you. StarNeptune 09:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Disallow. Seems clearly to be an attack account. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

End moved section

Seeing the above on WP:RFCN, I indef-blocked the account User:Jennie Cooper. I'm moving the thread here so that it will be archived, and so that anyone who wants to can review my action. Mangojuice^talk 12:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above, I have deleted the userpage as an attack page against the person who was being impersonated. Newyorkbrad 13:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:WunNation

This account appears to be a vandalism account - his edit history seems to consist mostly of subtle racist vandalism and random votes in AfD discussions, while his user page is bordering on an attack page. While all the vandalism is fairly low-level, can someone keep an eye on him? - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WunNation.--cj | talk 14:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User indef blocked by Ryan.--cj | talk 15:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Choolabuuulba and User:Booooomerang. Sockpuppets of User:Danny Daniel and User:Choolabuuula (repost)

Before I could get on to reporting these two users, you probably should know who Danny Daniel is. Danny Daniel is a user who vandalized pages related My Gym Partner's a Monkey and Zatch Bell!. His confirmed sockpuppets like to create hoaxes and vandalise articles related to The Fairly OddParents, My Gym Partner's a Monkey, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, Re-Animated and anything related to anime. He created a hoax article called Monk (Cartoon Network). All of this would eventually get him blocked indefinitely for vandalism on December 21, 2006. See this Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Danny Daniel for more information about this vandal.

I already notified User talk:Persian Poet Gal about this, but she says that she can't log on right now, so I decided to report this here. Anyways, I found two possible sockpuppets of Danny Daniel. They are Choolabuuulba (talk · contribs) and Booooomerang (talk · contribs). Both of these accounts have similar editing patterns to that indefinitely blocked user. In fact, Choolabuulba even edited a page created by Booooomerang adding on to the hoax with more misinformation and lies. Choolabuulba also edited List of characters from My Gym Partner's a Monkey, which is a page Danny Daniel's sockpuppets seem to edit frequently ([71], [72], [73], [74]). Danny Daniel's edits can be traced back as far as September 2006, three months before the name Danny Daniel was registered.. Both seem to be vandal-only accounts. To top it all off, Boooomerang has created a hoax page called Jeanie Meanie Minnie Mo. Note how it seems to relate to the television shows The Fairly OddParents, Ed, Edd n Eddy (see the parts about Jib), and Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. Danny Daniel's sockpuppets seem to "like" creating hoaxes like that.

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Danny Daniel shows some other suspected sockpuppets of Danny Daniel that were reported to a checkuser, but most of them were considered "inconclusive." Even User:Jibbity was considered to be inconclusive. Squirepants101 00:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more edits directed at My Gym Partner's a Monkey. [75], [76], [77], [78].

I originally posted this on 00:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC), but no admin had resolved it then. About two days later, User:MiszaBot II archived it and it still has not been resolved. Squirepants101 14:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:HARASS by User:Smee reported by User:Justanother (posted here as requested by User:Jersey Devil)

I believe that, for Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), tendentious editing crossed a clear line into harassment just before I went on a wikibreak last week. Before I left I reported the escalation of the harassment to wikistalking to an admin, User:Jersey Devil (JD), that had previously warned Smee about this selfsame activity. Smee disregarded that warning (below) and continued to follow me around to a degree that eventually reached the level of stalking:

Do not come to my talk page to continue your fight with Justanother. Do not follow the user around wikipedia to begin fights, it is disruption and your fights have already taken up large amounts of space on AN/I. I suggest you avoid the user because if you follow him around to start fights as you did on my talk page I will enforce policy. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 04:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I returned yesterday and saw that JD had asked me to take this complaint here so here it is. My desired outcome is that User:Smee respect me as an editor and respect my edits. I have in the past allowed myself to take an inappropriate tone with tendentious and harassing editors when their offensive activity was directed at me. That is a fault that I: 1) took a 24-hour block for from JD (while User:Smee saw no censure of her disruptive editing) and 2) prior to that had vowed to address. I specifically addressed the issue with User:Smee immediately prior to her wiki-stalking me so that shows me that simple discussion of the issue is to avail. I suggest an appropriate block to ensure that User:Smee "gets it". Thank you. Below are the particulars (mostly copied from User talk:Jersey Devil):

18 March - Smee is warned by JD to not follow me "around wikipedia to begin fights".

20 March - Smee votes to delete a category I just created that I had put up for suggestions on a rename: Diff

21 March - Smee warns me of WP:BITE for my replying in a pretty friendly sarcasm to a sarcastic remark by someone that, despite being a little new, is clearly a mature editor. Diff

• Interjecting here. I was not being sarcastic in my first comment ever to an active Wikipedia discussion, and appreciated Smee's support. Maturity, however, is not something I am usually accused of, so I must express my thanks, Justanother :) ClaudeReigns 14:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps sardonic then is the better word? Or you tell me please. Point being that I simply responded in kind and there was no intention to bite. Did I scare you? --Justanother 15:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Re-affirming without re-engaging Justanother that I was not being sarcastic nor sardonic in my Strong Keep for the Tilman Hausherr article. It was legitimate enthusiasm. I truly appreciated Smee's WP:BITE comment. ClaudeReigns 18:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah. Then I enthusiastically replied. --Justanother 21:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Justanother's enthusiasm was why I felt Smee's WP:BITE comment was warranted. ClaudeReigns 21:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, CR, I won't press you on that any further. Though I repeat that your history and style show you be a much more robust editor (add that to "mature") than might need such protection as one would provide a "weak sister". Would you not agree? The main point is that Smee should have not been the one to warn me if warning was warranted, IMO, given his history with me and the recent warning for him to back off. And it got worse from there and clearly shows a pattern of WP:HARASS. --Justanother 22:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• I wouldn't. WP:BITE isn't about my protection or my lunch money. It's about your etiquette. ClaudeReigns 09:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • All due respect Claude (and I do like your style) but no, WP:CIVIL is for etiquette; WP:BITE is for protection. While I am sure that you appreciate etiquette, I suspect that you have as little need for protection from the "spoken" word as I do. Best regards. --Justanother 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The two above did not really set off my radar that Smee had no intention of following JD's advice but it got worse.

21 March - I respond to the BITE "warning" and then I remember that Smee has been warned against picking fights and I mention that. Smee deletes that bit of news, claiming "personal attack". Diff

21 March - Smee follows me to User:Sm1969's talk page to try to sow discord between us, IMO while outrightly accusing us if conspiring. Talk about picking fights!. Diff

23 March - I will just copy my posts from JD's page.

It gets worse - WP:STALK

Please see the edit history of these two articles [79] and [80] starting with my edits today March 23 and my comment below as posted in article talk which sums up my problem. And it is a problem. Now I cannot even go to a completely uninvolved article and make good edits without instant reversion and subsequent edit-warring by Smee. And this is just after I thought that Smee and I had come to some sort of agreement with Smee promising to reform. Just more of the usual smoke and mirrors on her part, I guess.

Ms. Smee. I am obviously angry that you followed me over to these articles to edit-war and fight with me. I think that it would have shown good grace and good faith on your part had you simply let my edits stand. You should have just waited; not raced over here because I made an edit. That is abusive. I do not care how many articles you have on your watchlist. The point is that these two are not articles that you have any real history in; I made an edits; you raced over to revert them. This is about you, Ms. Smee, not me and I think I have done an admirable job of controlling my anger and simply stating the offenses in the edit summaries for ease of locating them later. --Justanother 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

--Justanother 18:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please help. Thanks. --Justanother 14:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure to what extent I'm supposed to further comment on this ANI, being mentioned and all, but should my perspective on conflicts between these two editors be desired, please contact by email. ClaudeReigns 14:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Another perspective

I've noticed that Justanother is accusing Smee of stalking him based somewhat on his interpretation of Jersey Devil's comments. When I look at the comments to both editors from him, the impression I get is that Jersey Devil doesn't want to be involved in this kind of dispute. He told Smee not to post about it on his talk page anymore, he didn't say to stop posting about it period. He asked Justanother to post his concerns here rather than on his talk page too.

Moreover Justanother's accusations of stalking and harassment are not exactly accurate. He may feel harassed but that is because Smee has been trying to hold him accountable for some of Justanother's nad nehavior, which Justanother does not want to do.

Actually if anyone is being stalked and harassed, it's Smee by Justanother. I self nominated for admin on WP:RFA where Smee voted. Justanother added his vote too, which is fair enough since all are welcome to do so. He however chose to harass Smee as well by leaving a questionable comment under her vote: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Anynobody.

For a person who says he's tired of arguing with Smee, he does strange things, Anynobody 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I don't see enough on either side to warrant a block or immediate intervention. This looks like a case of two editors who don't get along, and would probably be best handled by pursuing the steps ennumerated in WP:Dispute resolution. MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother's previous disruptive history

1. Justanother has been previously warned for disrupting the WP:ANI process:, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive206#BabyDweezil_redux:_proposing_a_one-month_block.
2. Justanother was recently blocked for "Violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT and WP:NPA". DIFF
3. The articles in question above that the user complains about were previously on my watchlist. This is clearly simply another attempt by this user to obfuscate and disrupt the encyclopedia project. Thank you for your time. Smee 22:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

   User:Smee (formerly User:Smeelgova, a name known for WP:TE), don't you get tired of trotting those out every time I call you on your inappropriate behaviour. See, I have let my temper run away with me in the past when confronted with inappropriate behaviour by editors such as yourself. That is old news; your inappropraite behaviour goes on and on and continues at this very instant at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology. --Justanother 23:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   User:Smee (formerly User:Smeelgova, a name known for WP:TE), - I refer to her history of tendentious editing as shown in incidents such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger. --Justanother 23:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, which part of the arbcom case you refrenced proves WP:TE? The part where Smeelgova said this?:

I personally resent the negative-faith attacks that Jcoonrod has made against me in the past month. I do apologize for copying a comment from a prior editor back into the article, stating that "The Hunger Project regularly edits Wikipedia." However, I have attempted to utilize reputable sources for all of the historical documentation, and to cite said sources with endnote references and blockquote citations. In this manner, I have tried to let the language used by the sources speak for themselves, rather than paraphrasing my own POV into the mix. As to the relevance of the history of the organization and legality of sources I refer to comment above. Recent debated sourced citations have come from Raising Hell: How the Center for Investigative Reporting Gets the Story, by David Weir and Dan Noyes, published by the Center for Investigative Reporting, and not from The London Times.Smeelgova 15:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

or this part where the committee says:

3) It is presumed that, using the suggested guidelines we have made, Jcoonrod, Smeelgova, and other involved editors can edit responsibly without sanctions which restrict their editing of this or related articles.

Passed 6 to 0 at 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the arbcom didn't find any wrongdoing on Smeelgova's part, why are you citing this as evidence of bad faith on her part (the accusations made by the subject are irrelevant obviously because the arbcom didn't find them true)? Anynobody 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

'Fraid we don't read it quite the same, Anynobody. The ArbCom is indicative of her long history of POV-pushing tendentious editing. That is what Jcoonrod is objecting to. Smee is new there and has not yet proved her pattern. Jcoonrod just came in to handle the issue and is not an experienced editor. The ArbCom was not on Smee, it was on the inclusion of the POV-pushing non-RS data which looks to have been disallowed. I simply cite it to show that my earlier statement, "User:Smeelgova, a name known for WP:TE)", was not made lightly. I read that ArbCom and look at the article history, I see Smee's normal pattern, nothing more, nothing less. But there is no point in going round and round on that. I simply used it in passing to support my main point that Smee trots out old news but her pattern goes on and on. See Large Group Awareness Training where she was running over a couple of other editors with her inappropriate inclusions of non-RS POV-pushing material. There is your answer. --Justanother 01:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but citing an arbcom case where A) Smeelgova's involvement was peripheral and B) the arbcom stated that Smeelgova can continue to edit is not very good evidence of Smee doing anything close to what is outlined in the essay WP:TE. Anynobody 01:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A) Smeelgova's involvement was peripheral - Huh? You might want to take another read there. That ArbCom was brought by Jcoonrod with an intro that was all about Smee.

I have engaged in an enormous amount of good faith discussion and applied for mediation on June 8, but escalating actions by Smeelgova lead me to believe that mediation is unlikely to work. Smeelgova has disputed edits by User:Danny (although they are now restored on the page). And my decision to request arbitration was reinforced by comments to Smeelgova on Danny's discussion page by User:BradPatrick, "I'm really not sure what you are up to except grinding an axe."--Jcoonrod 15:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

His statement is all about the inappropriate editing of Smee that we have since seen time and time again.

For the past month, user Smeelgova has daily inserted large amounts of negative material to The Hunger Project (THP) and related pages such as Joan Holmes, Robert W. Fuller and others. All of this material has been presented in ways to imply an improper relationship between THP and one of its founders, Werner Erhard. Most of the material consists of references to anti-cult websites which, in itself, casts aspersions on our integrity. We endeavored to negotiate a fair representation of her POV in a criticism section based on the model of the Unicef entry, but Smeelgova insists that only complete listings of every incident of anyone expressing her POV must be included in order to achieve "balance." The Hunger Project has always been an independent organization which has never used its resources for any purpose other than ending hunger, as verified by independent auditors every year of our existence. To state or imply otherwise is false and libelous, and could do material harm to The Hunger Project by raising doubts in the minds of current or potential donors. This issue was litigated in the courts from 1986-1989 (see | press release). The court found the allegations to be false and unfounded and awarded damages to The Hunger Project.

Peripheral?? --Justanother 02:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom case was about the article, The Hunger Project. If the arbcom was about only accusations and discussions regarding Smeelgova wouldn't it have her username in the title? (Like BabyDweezil's did). Anynobody 05:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Kirbytime

Although it has been 2 weeks since User Kirbytime attacked me here by telling me to "GTFO" (get the fuck out) and writing a message of "WP:DICK" as a subject and in the message body, telling another user that "You dont fucking own the template", could an administrator please block him for atleast 24 hours or something to show that this abuse is not tolerated on Wikipedia? thanks. This is also the same user who has denied the holocaust and is requesting pictures of Child Porn and other lewd pictures in Wikipedia which I have reported 3 sections above where he has accused me of stalking. Many users ([81], [82]) are finding his behavior disturbing. I'm sorry I had to bother the administrators but seeing his latest reactions I could not help but report this abusive user. --Matt57 01:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I know this about Kirby as well, but have you considered WP:DR? The Behnam 03:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I had tried to contact the user himself but he denied he had done anything wrong. --Matt57 03:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe one of the more authoritative types of DR than simply contacting. It is important to build a leveled documentation trail, if that makes any sense. The Behnam 03:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought those two instances of abuse I gave above should be enough to warrant a warning by an administrator, if not a block. If he abuses again, I will go through the DR as you mentioned. --Matt57 03:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps they should, and it is easy to find similar examples of abuse just by going through his contribs and looking at his handling of disagreement with other editors. In fact I recall him leaving a rude post on my own talk page. But I'm just telling you that DR is probably the best way to go. Or you could propose ban at CN. The Behnam 04:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've warned him. He's a troll. If he trolls anymore I'll block him. DR is not useful for trolls. Herostratus 04:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think what is really disturbing here is not just the trolling, but the fact that Kirbytime keeps requesting images that are not appropriate at all. I think this needs to be monitored. MetsFan76 04:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Herostratus, thanks. I'll keep an eye out for any further objectionable activity by Kirbytime. Its very disturbing to see his requests all over Wikipedia for child sex related pictures. He's testing Wikipedia's policies and pushing buttons.--Matt57 04:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been editing Wikipedia for over a year now, and you accuse me of trolling? So tell me, how is that helpful? Look, just because you are afraid of having pictures on an article which are directly related to the article (oh no someone is asking to improve an article by adding relevant pictures in order to make more WP:GA, better accuse him of trolling and threaten to block him). I'm sorry, wasn't there a guideline that specifically addresses this? Oh that's right assume bad faith. I have never asked for anything illegal. I have said, articles must have pictures in order to improve their quality. Please find me a single featured article which contains no pictures. And also, I have NEVER asked for photographs of rape or anything illegal. If I was doing that, it would be justified to call me a troll. But I have never asked for such a thing! I have said pictures depicting the subject, which could be anything that's even vaguely related. My own suggestion on the rape article was a picture of alcohol with a description of it being a popular date rape drug. Matt is once again making a big deal out of nothing, and repeating the same old lies.

אָחֹ֥ות לָ֙נוּ֙ קְטַנָּ֔ה וְשָׁדַ֖יִם אֵ֣ין לָ֑הּ מַֽה־נַּעֲשֶׂה֙ לַאֲחֹתֵ֔נוּ בַּיֹּ֖ום שֶׁיְּדֻבַּר־בָּֽהּ׃

???--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 08:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A reminder of staying cool for you, Kirbytime. Sarcasm will not solve problems but make them worse. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 09:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but when a user follows you around to every fucking article you edit and slanders you, and then if you make the tiniest grunt of irritation, threatens to have you blocked, I, as an average human being, cannot help but make rather cynical responses. I'm here to improve Wikipedia. This whole thing is a waste of my time. Instead of writing up all this shit, I could have spell-checked an article, or answered someone's question at a ref desk, or help translate an article at babel. Unlike certain users who have nothing better to do than to follow another editor around (in flagrant violation of WP:HARASS, I want to be left alone. Nobody complained when I first asked for pictures to be added to the Child pornography article, over 4 months ago Talk:Child_pornography#This_article_needs_more_pictures. I had a good discussion with some users regarding the issue; some agreed, some didn't, and each person offered his/her own opinion. But then someone can along and ruined the whole thing, and now I have to waste my time responding to frivolous accusations. And with this, I am no longer responding to this, and I will no longer speak with anyone regarding these issues. Matt, go ahead and notify every user that I have denied the holocaust, requested pictures of rape, gave a blow job to Ahmadinejad, masturbate to pictures of American soldiers dying, or whatever you can think of. I simply don't care anymore.

Der gives Folk, der i den Grad omgaaes letsindigt og skammeligt med Andres Ideer, de snappe op, at de burde tiltales for ulovlig Omgang med Hittegods.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 09:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please post in English. Corvus cornix 20:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, please watch the language. The original poster complained about your language, & you're not helping your case by dropping an f-bomb. If anything, by doing so you're only convincing the disinterested to agree that you should be blocked for incivil language. -- llywrch 20:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a rule against swearing? I don't remember one...? I thought we were all adults here -_---Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 02:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's covered by WP:CIVIL. But if I'm wrong, consider this: a lot of people (like me) are coming to this discussion without any knowledge about you. Dropping f-bombs allows us to make the snap conclusion that you are a troublemaker -- or a crank -- but clearly someone who we don't want on Wikipedia. (BTW, it's an unwritten rule in customer service: the minute the customer starts to swear, they can -- & will -- hang up, no matter what complaint the customer has -- or who she/he is.) Sure, you can insist on being allowed to use any choice of words you want -- but is winning that battle worth losing this one? Do yourself a favor, & try a little harder to express yourself in a less "adult" manner. -- llywrch 00:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Persistent violations of WP:CIVIL by User:WassermannNYC

User:WassermannNYC has been attacking me for weeks now, with edit summaries and comments which persistently violate WP:CIVIL. These include reverting multiple articles with the justification that he is using "User:Jayjg's policy": [83] [84] [85] or a "'New policy' per User:Jayjg" or similar wordings: [86] [87] [88] [89]. He has also used edit summaries to refer to Jayjg's injustice(s), Jayjg's smear, User:Jayjg tactic. Most recently he posted a long diatribe to a talk page, with the edit summary for the sake of the entire project Jayjg, PLEASE end this madness and end your blatant censorship, and including this gem:

"Face it Jayjg: you are clearly practicing censorship in this case, and you practiced it in the case of the (former) List of Jewish American businesspeople article/list, and on numerous other occasions here on Wikipedia. Your behavior down this twisted path of censorship, irrationality, and utter ridiculousness is now spiraling out-of-control and only exposes you as the ruthless censor that you are. I believe that even now you are beginning to recognize your own administrative shortcomings and thus should take a Wikipedia:Wikibreak (if only to allow yourself some time to reflect upon you irrational actions, your inability to maintain a NPOV, and also to examine a possible Wiki-addiction on your part)."

He has also ranted about "admins" in general, in particular about their "censorship":

• END WIKI CENSORSHIP!
• End administraitor censorship!
• Fight Wiki-censorship
• GOOD G-D what monstrous, censorious, and blatant POV!
• it is censorious POV to keep deleting Toaff's name from this section and you censors know it -- how can you people live with yourselves?
• it is censorious POV to keep deleting Toaff's name from this section and you censors know it -- how can you censors live with yourselves?
• Please cease your blatant censorship
• Please cease your blatant censorship:
• you only prove my point that rampant censorship thrives here on Wikipedia
• you only prove my point that rampant censorship thrives here on Wikipedia
• END WIKI-CENSORSHIP!
• I'm truly sick of your censorious behavior
• I'm truly sick of your censorious behavior
• reverting Runcorn's blatant censorship
• you people aren't trying to censor the censorship page in order to prevent attempts to prevent censorship, are you? LOL--a new low!

His User page contains a long diatribe about admins and censorship, and when not insulting me or fulminating about "censorship", he is still prone to general rudeness (e.g. VANDALISM?! Are you tripping on acid or something?! What is the matter w/ you?, WHERE ARE THE ADMINS. WHEN YOU NEED THEM? Admins. -- please start adminstrating a bit more and stop spending all of your time on Jewish articles) He has been asked to stop acting this way many times, and warned that WP:CIVIL is policy, but he appears to believe he is not bound by it. I believe it is possible that User:WassermannNYC could contribute positively to Wikipedia, but his belligerent attitude and persistent rudeness make it extremely hard to work with him. I'm recommending a one week block, to allow him to cool down and re-consider the way he interacts with editors, and realize the importance of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a week block will demonstrate that civility is not optional here. This is well beyond the scope of productive behavior and the user has had plenty of notice to stop. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea... in today's nod to irony the editor has a WP:AGF userbox...--Isotope23 19:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Some time off to review WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF may help. -- Avi 19:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This editor deserves perhaps a longer sentence for racist behavior.Bakaman 19:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked him for 48 hours for now, as he was not blocked before. If his behavior pattern persists, I would recommend longer periods, with at least a 1 week block next. Crum375 19:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

At this point, if the problem persists a longer block than a week may be justified. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We shouldn't tolerate anything near this level of disruption. If his behaviour doesn't improve after the block, then a longer block would be in order, in my opinion. Guettarda 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorsing the block, in hope that this will contribute to improving the dwindling civility in our community. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Pile-on endorse, and I'll add a note to his talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block too. However, I think the issue goes beyond civility (not that I am belittling the importance of civility). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a soap-box, and we have policies to enforce this. Someone needs to educate this user that having to comply with policies is not a matter of censorship, and that if s/he wants to spout his/her own opinions no one will get in the say - as long a s/he does it on his/her own web-page, not ours. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Khoikhoi 17:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block as well, way too much disruption and a very low roi. FeloniousMonk 02:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS violation?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/KeithTyler, regarding the MfD for WP:AMA. Personally, I do not think this is really on, but I could be wrong. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Also mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Canvassing. --kingboyk 20:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the mass-notice suggests that AMA is being "threatened", I'd say this is definitely partisan canvassing, and definitely not on. Chris cheese whine 23:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not just an AFD about an article. This a termination of a whole project. Am I to take WP:CANVASS to mean that I can't notify the members of that project about a proposal to delete it? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 04:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You didn't have to word it as "the project is being threatened with deletion". -Amarkov moo! 04:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Whole-heartedly agreed. A message that does not intend to galvanize the members would be much more appreciated; maybe, "AMA has been listed at mfd. Please consider offering your comments at the dicussion." And even then, I do not think that canvassing even with such a mild message is necessary; I assume AMA members regularly go to the main AMA page, no? If so, they'll just notice it and pop by. --Iamunknown 04:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no; I think they're more likely to go to the AMA requests for assistance page. Or be dealing with a current case. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 05:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, with that wording it's definitely canvassing. – Chacor 04:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The canvassing is working, too. --kingboyk 16:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Thug incident(s)

Actions of Dr. Thug could've been understood under WP:TROLL. On User:Dr. Thug, he wrote (quote): "Dr. Thug is a wikipedia user known for great articals and brilliant comments, he is one of the best Wikipedia has." That made me immediately think that was a throwaway sock-puppet intent on Wikipedia:Disruption, but persistence showed otherwise.

On this article the user has introduced an Edit War (broke 3RR, despite being warned by me). His latest 21:14, 30 March 2007 edit he rv to his version and wrote in the Edit Summary: "i know you wan´t it 2 say "Orthodox Serb" so people think he was serb but that ain´t gonna work chetnik!" Note: The last sentence was used in the very same context as (white man) calling black people Niggers. He continues/continued the edit war despite I civilly invited him at his talk page to discuss the dispute in a peaceful manner. He removed all my posts from his talk page in silence.

Then he at 18:50, 30 March 2007 vandalized my own talk page by replacing it with "I am a Nazi". I gave him a formal warning not to vandalize and introduced to him several Wikipedia's policies. He immediately removed the warning.

If Special:Contributions/Dr._Thug is inspected, a series of personal attacks and disruption/incivility can be seen (which made me think the account was a simple troll at the beginning). Some of the Edit Summaries include "STOP SPREDING PROPAGANDA CHETNIKS!" (for the word refer to the up).

Professional intervention is needed to prevent further disruption. --PaxEquilibrium 21:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Damn. That user's not here to contribute to the project. I have indefinitely blocked the user for edit warring, incivility, personal attacks, and vandalism.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I support Ryulong on this, as if anyone won't. Not only did this user respond by deleting the original complaint & Ryulong's notice that he was indef blocked, this user claimed to be "one of the best [editors] Wikipedia has" after misspelling the word "article" -- as his first contribution to Wikipedia. -- llywrch 00:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Slander on Wiki

I have done my best to settle this little problem but I fear I do not have the power to affect this. I hope this is the right place for this. If not please let me know where I am to post it!

Curse of Fenric has made accusations back in September of 06 that Riot City Wrestling was "Drug Afflicted". In March 07, Mal Case accused High Risk Pro Wrestling of the same and added the "Sends Death Threats" accusations and continually makes edits on these accusations without providing any evidence except heresay. After several communications with the accused promotions (which are all poster on on this page, I was asked to post this paragraph which I have.

"today i met with HRPW management and we discussed the issues on WIKAPEDIA, i would like to make a statement on behalf of RCW, RCW is not drug afflicted, HRPW and RCW are only friendly competition not mortal enemies,to CURSE OF FENRIC and MAL CASE we do not know what you are going on about and wish you both to stop slandering SA wrestling as a whole and if you continue to RCW will be forced to take legal action"

Both promotions have read all the pages mentioned in my explanations and have come to that conclusion. The legal threat is to Curse of Fenic and Mal Case ONLY (apparently known to RCW and HRPW)

Could you please leave a warning on the talk pages of the above mentioned users about stopping their "slander attacks". Mal Case claims to have left Wiki but a check on his contributions will prove otherwise.

Thanks a lot. WackadooXanadu2 02:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Mind telling us what this edit was all about? --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 02:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please also take some time to read WP:LEGAL.--Isotope23 02:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

RCW

- i DON'T CARE IF YOU DON'T RESPOND TO THIS BUT SINCE YU SEEM TO HAVE SOME INSIDE INFORMATION, ARE YOU WILLING TO RISK naming the drugged up wrestlers in a full investigation? Can you get me the evidence needed for this? If you can, I will present it to the proper authorities in a proper investigation! eg. Are the drugs Medical or Recreational? Since you know Joe, maybe you can approch him with his evidence and stamp out the drugs! WackadooXanadu2 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC) This is my attempt to get some hard evidence on the accusations so there would me no possibility of mis-understanding. Both promotions have opened their doors to "investigation". Proper authorities started out as the Wiki Admins and whoever they suggest as well the the administrations of the two accused promotions! WackadooXanadu2 03:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

With you posting this message on their talk pages, I doubt they will reply. Making legal threats makes the situation much worse, as it is another reason why they're not responding. Try to talk to them in a civil manner please. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 03:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked WackadooXanadu2 indefinitely for legal threats. Durova^Charge! 05:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Note for admins - I have emailed Kzrulzuall with the details of the history of this issue. This includes the evidence that what both I and Mal Case said is true (except for the "death" threats - which was an interpretation issue on Mal's part which we still disagree on even now but he's agreed at least not to use the word death again on that point). I have asked that the Professional wrestling in Australia page be protected for a few weeks to stop this issue before it gets out of hand as the last two anon edits (clearly both RCW fans) prove. The legal threat posted by Wackadoo disproves the claim by RCW that they don't engage in threats. My actions and Mal's are merely to protect WP from an edit war and possible fed promotion which is also not allowed on WP. Once this issue is resolved I may ask Mal to remove the appropriate parts from the talk page - unless we are told otherwise of course. Thank you. Curse of Fenric 03:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Harassment by Arbustoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbustoo has been repeatedly [90][91][92][93][94] leaving messages on my talk page, and following me to other talk pages [95]. He has been told to quit by both me [96] [97], and admin JzG [98]. JzG advised him to take the matter to AN/I, where he garnered no support and his complaint was dismissed by admin CambridgeBayWeather [99]. Now he has taken to reverting me on my own user talk page, restoring his comments [100]. He appears to have a history of edit warring judging from his block log, but I do not intend to get in an edit war on my own talk page. I would appreciate it if someone would take a look at the situation and have a word with him. Frise 02:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with you. This user has been repeatedly harrassing users because he suspects that they have violated WP:SOCK. When they denied such accusations, he immediately starts to spam them blindly, hoping that one of them actually did something wrong. Judging from his ignorance and continuance, despite the many warnings and suggestions, I would support a block. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 03:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Arbustoo has a tendency to see socks where none exist, due to long experience with User:Jason Gastrich. He needs to be more moderate. On the other hand, it is usually in response to his eing attacked by yet another new user attempting to whitewash articles on unaccredited schools, so it's not too surprising that he gets a bit paranoid. I will have a chat with him. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I leave it in your hands, as he seems to respect your opinion. I want nothing more to do with this user. At all. Frise 09:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Those tendencies and some others as well—I trust this matter to Guy's capable hands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Z.E.R.O. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Okay, some of this will no longer be relevant, as it's a partial repost from a week ago.

He had been going around and making bad-faith edits recently, like warning admins using TW and a template to warn vandals after reverting them. (See: [101], [102], [103], etc) Also, this edit which he tells the person they "will be blocked" for sockpuppeting when it's obvious the account he refers to is an attack account. And a similar edit to Qxz's page. Also, tagging this IP as a sock when it's only made one edit.

He recently also impersonated me on wikia, mediawiki and meta-wiki, and was warned by Angela for it, so one can't help but think this (tagging socks and asking others about impersonation accounts) was related.

---

Okay, to more recent stuff:

• Recreating User:BRSG and talk page in bad-faith, ages after it had been deleted.
• Harassing Qxz long after he's left with civility warnings over his RFA outbursts, going on to tell him he would be blocked if he continued
• Leaving {{vandalblock}} on pages of blocked users - as far as I am aware only admins should do this.

Yes, he has *some* good edits, but I'm starting to think his negative useless edits far outweigh any help he provides - we already have lots of vandalfighters as is. – Chacor 05:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I see a big problem with his bad faith edits, and lack of maturity, but apart from that, I doubt there's enough evidence for a block. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 05:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that his edits are in bad faith. I see no evidence to suggest that he intends to harass users (even to harass Qxz), harm the encyclopedia, or otherwise prove a WP:POINT. Misguided, yes; bad-faith, no. --Iamunknown 05:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain his warnings to the admins, or the recreation of User:BRSG and User talk:BRSG then? Look at his move log which proves he intentionally re-created BRSG: "# 21:10, March 30, 2007 Z.E.R.O. (Talk | contribs) moved User:BRSG to User talk:BRSG (Move warninigs to talk page)" - there is no utter need to recreate pages that have been deleted two months ago to "warn" when the indefblock was even longer ago. – Chacor 05:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That is only weak circumstantial evidence that the contributor is attempting to disrupt the encyclopedia and suggests that, currently, this is only an editorial dispute. My remedies: assume good faith, be civil, work with Zero to encourage productive contributions and (IMO most importantly) have some warm chicken noodle soup and a laptop (if you own one) by the fire. ^^;; --Iamunknown 05:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What editorial dispute? ZERO is doing things he shouldn't. End of. Kinda hard to AGF when he knows what he's doing, don't you think? It would be easier to prove if an admin could take a look at the deleted revision and tell us what the recreation edit summary is, because I saw it but can't remember what it is. It also wouldn't be so bad if this was any random person, but the fact that he chose that account to do it to - which, as I've said, was used by me - and our recent spat where he used my account name illegally on other wikis - can only make me feel this is not done in good faith. – Chacor 05:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that Zero knows what is and is not appropriate, it looks like he or she is happily reverting vandalism away (if that it is possible :-P) (c.f. Special:Contributions/Z.E.R.O.). It appears your message did the trick. I'm not sure anymore deliberation is currently necessary. I wasn't taking into account the impersonation. That is definitely serious. Any developments between Zero and Angela? --Iamunknown 05:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Angela blocked the accounts, and Zero claimed he didn't know that pretending to be other wasn't allowed. And I'm not sure if you got my point - BRSG was used by me. Therefore for him to arbitrarily choose to recreate specifically User:BRSG, and not any other random indefblocked sock, really caught me off-guard. – Chacor 05:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I missed the point. Who knows, maybe Zero really didn't know that pretending isn't allowed. People and esp. children play pretend occassionally. I freely admit, however, that it is a bit of a stretch to assume that. The edit summary (if one was used) and revision info would indeed be helpful. I can see how it would catch you off-guard. --Iamunknown 05:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, he [104] claims to have left. But the last time he claimed such he was back within 36 hours, all the while making edits from his IP address. So, take it with a pinch of salt. – Chacor 06:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is Derex? But Zero has indeed decided to retire. Sounds to me like a insincere departure in response to conflict. --Iamunknown 06:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My bad, wrong link – Chacor 06:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And yes, the last time he left (first indefinitely, then until Christmas, then until April, eventually for just 36 hours) it was because of the impersonation. So he clearly knows what he's doing. Why he's targetting me, specifically, I don't know. – Chacor 06:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Zero has unretired again. I left a warning on his talk page, because this is getting out of hand. --Coredesat 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Off-wiki legal threats against Wikipedia

Over on anti-Wikipedia whinefest Wikipedia Review, somebody claiming to be associated with American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, or at least the modern company that has taken on this name in imitation of an unrelated early-20th-century movie company, is ranting and making legal threats, which of course are being warmly received over there, as is any anti-Wikipedia rant no matter how crackpotted. Among the things this guy apparently wants to sue over is our insistence on not considering his company the direct successor to the "classic" one, in the absence of any references outside of his own site that states such a connection in contrast to the many references that cite the original company being out of business by the 1930s. *Dan T.* 16:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This happens pretty often at WR; they do nothing but whine and complain. I don't think that there's anything we can do, anyway. WR is way out of our jurisdiction. Comments? PTO 18:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess its the wiki media foundation that should deal with this if anyone, not that any of WR's legal threats ever actually come to anything. Making legal threats is a poor substitute for pursuing legal action. Worth putting the article on one's watchlist though, SqueakBox 18:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User Harrasment

The certain user Rokbas attacked me some time ago for editing an article, which he did not like, although the criticism was based on what everyday news say. He proceeded to my talkpage and left insults, as well as threats of having me banned. He also made several ip adresses with which he appears to edit my talk page from time to time. I ask this user to be warned to stop, since he is taking this to a personal and completly unprofessional level and apparently holds a grundge against me for some reason. He also threathened to report me if I delete my talkpage again, so it is possible he will send a report shortly as well. Please make him stop. Thank you!

MorisSlo 18:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It'll help if you spoke in English... --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 21:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It would also help if you didn't act like a dick (Kzrulzuall). Jiffypopmetaltop 21:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember WP:NPA jiffypop. May I also ask in what instance was I being a dick? They were insulting each other in a different language. --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 22:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It's pretty hard to figure out what's going on when its written in a different language (and a different alphabet, for that matter). This is English Wikipedia. Natalie 01:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Saskatchewan politics

Re 70.73.4.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This editor has been given repeated last-chance warnings for various misconduct in relation to Saskatchewan political articles, yet still continues this editing pattern. Could the matter have admin attention? Tearlach 19:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a sysop but I sugges taking it to AIV, make sure all vandals reported their have had a last warning though. Cheers! Tellyaddict 19:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible puppets

Zuko14, Zeo12, and Traceguy all only edit their user pages and/or Aang and articles to do with Avatar: The Last Airbender. They also continue to add non-free images to their user pages as well as edit each other's user pages. This is either three guys who know each other and they are using Wikipedia as a MySpace or it is one guy with multiple accounts screwing around. Traceguy created and recreated an article about himself, Traceguy, seven times. IrishGuy ^talk 23:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Need some sock blocks

Dereks1x (talk · contribs) was recently confirmed to be a puppetmaster of several socks this recently closed SSP. Dereks1x was blocked for 48 hours by Durova for violations of WP:POINT, but the socks weren't blocked because there was not evidence that Dereks1x used them to evade blocks. Now, however, the confirmed socks are being used by Dereks1x to edit while under his 48 hour block (even pretending to talk to Dereks1x on his talk page). The relevant users are TL500 (talk · contribs) and HumanThing (talk · contribs). I would indef block the socks for use by the master to evade a block, but I was involved in the SSP and an editing dispute with the master. Someone want to dish out a couple blocks? · j e r s y k o talk · 00:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Response by TL500

• Jersyko is trying to harass
• blocking by Durova was improper. Durova nominated an administrator and Dereks1x posed a legitimate question to the candidate. Durova did not like the question so Durova made the block. The question to the candidate was whether he would consider recusing himself from any decision involving those that voted for or against him. That was a legitimate ethics question. So the person nominating him did the block. Jersyko was one of the people voting.

So here we have a question of political patronage. You pose a legitimate question and you get blocked. Durova, who does not do SSP administration normally jumped in to protect her/his candidate.

Furthermore, Durova did state that only Dereks1x would be blocked not the other accused. There is extensive proof that I am not a sockpuppet, but Durova didn't want the normal SSP person to review it and make a judgement in their favor.

Therefore, this is just a sign that Jersyko is abusing his knowledge as an administrator to harass. Show me where I have been disruptive today. TL500 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Both accounts indef blocked. To Dereks1x: for the second time I advise you to read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. You may seek a mentor through WP:ADOPT program during your block by posting {{Adoptme}} to your user talk page. Durova^Charge! 01:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't about disruption. It is about using socks to evade a block. IrishGuy ^talk 00:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

SLCUT841 (talk · contribs) is a pretty obvious Dereks1x sock, too (though this ID wasn't subject to the SSP). See SLCUT841's first edit (to my talk page) and note that SLCUT841's second and third edits were to create the speedy deleted Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tvoz (check the deletion log). · j e r s y k o talk · 05:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've indef blocked that sock. It ceased activity before Dereks1x requested mentorship so I'll be very very nice and not extend the 48 hour block. As noted at the unblock denial, additional time would be amply justified by this user's antics since the 48 hours were announced. I count about ten days' worth and intend to apply all of it if this issue gets pushed another millimeter. Durova^Charge! 05:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Jokes abound...

... And I'm just as guilty. But, lets keep April Fools crap out of the Main and MediaWiki namespaces. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I personally think that MediaWiki namespace would be okay, as long as the system message edited is only available to registered users. However, regardless of what we decide here, someone's going to revert any edits anyone makes to the MediaWiki namespace with a righteous indignation, so oh well. Gracenotes^T § 03:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ellen Fanning and block review

I have s-protected Ellen Fanning and blocked 0001 (talk · contribs). This user was repeatedly adding a passage about this individual's purported smoking history. Under WP:BLP, I, and several others, have reverted this change and informed the user that such things need to be sourced. After s-protecting it, I found out that Jimbo was interviewed by this person and that is the reason this article is getting so much traffic. I have no earthly idea who she is or if she does/did smoke ... only that such a claim could be defamatory and needs to be sourced and demonstrated to be important to be included in the article. To any other admin, please feel free to review the block and the protection. --BigDT 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse both, however I'm actively editing the article, so my endorsements means little. Daniel Bryant 05:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

False accusations and Personal attacks from User:Beit Or

Okay, so I realize that sometimes people take CFD's (and AFD's) a bit too seriously. Sometimes things get heated. Assuming good faith can be hard at times.
However, if you're going to accuse somebody of something, then you need to either be prepared to back it up, or be ready to take it back.

In a CFD for "Anti-Semitic people", Beit Or said, "In addition, you may consider not starting your posts with a brief piece of trolling." (you can find that here). Since he originally misplaced his comment (he later moved it right after one of mine), I didn't know if he was talking to me or BrownHairedGirl, and what 'trolling' he thought he saw, so I asked him (the intermediate revision not shown is because I forgot to use quotes to quote what he said).
Here is his reply. Note that it isn't very helpful.
(By now, I see that he's moved his comment to make it clear that he was addressing me)
Here is my reply to that. I think I was fair. It was a personal attack, since it was an unfounded accusation.
Here is his reply to me. Notice two things:

1. He still doesn't specify what part of my behaviour was supposedly wrong. If someone's going to accuse me of something, then they have an obligation to back it up. I can't start calling Bishonen a vandal without providing a single diff or explanation.

   Happens all the time, you'd be surprised. Bishonen | talk 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

2. He actually warned me there. He's the only one who's verifiably guilty of grossly uncivil conduct, and yet, rather than admit that he's made a mistake, he instead has the nerve to warn me!

My reply didn't pull any punches. Nor should it have. The only way I can possibly defend myself from an accusation is if I at least know precisely what I'm being accused of!
Somewhere in the midst of this, I also told him not to make personal attacks in the CFD itself. You can see his diff here, as well as my statement that he was replying to right above it. Note that he's reaffirming his accusation of my 'trolling', and yet still he never once points to a single quote or diff that he actually believes to be trolling.
My reply to that nonsense may not have been with a cool head, and yet, all I did was demand that he either back up his accusation or retract it. And that really is a very reasonable position to take. By all logic, if you're going to keep accusing someone of something, then you should be specific and provide at least a sliver of evidence!
Anyways, he didn't even bother replying to me on his talk page.
At first, I didn't know if it was simply because he'd went offline or something. I didn't want to assume that he was ignoring me (that'd be acting in bad faith), so I waited. And waited. And waited. Until I noticed that he had made comments elsewhere. Still, just in case he was only one for a moment, I waited a bit longer, until I saw that he'd be in wikipedia again. By then, I knew that he was certainly ignoring me.
Then I posted on his talk page again. I didn't insult him. I didn't call him a meaniehead or anything like that. I just said that I knew he'd been on so he saw my messages to him, and that I wanted him to either back up his accusations, or retract them, as well as his "warning".
This was fair and reasonable. If you absolutely refuse to back an accusation up, then you should (obviously) retract it. And any warnings he gave me were certainly uncalled for. (You can't warn a person for conduct that you can't even prove they ever did)
His response was to remove my comment from his talk page! And the edit summary is the real kicker. "rm fresh attack" and "rm latest attack" (it took a couple edits for him to get rid of it all).
So, let me get this straight... Saying, "prove your accusations against me or retract them" is an attack?!? Screw that. He's made personal attacks. False accusations. Given invalid warnings. Put me down on both his talk page and a public CFD.
I want it all deleted, and him told that it won't be tolerated in the future. I don't care about things like 'blocks', because I'm not going to assume that he's disrupting wikipedia in any other way, but this sort of crap has to stop, definitively. Bladestorm 17:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

While neither of you was as polite as you could have been, please try to avoid escalating a minor incident into a major war. Since you aren't asking for "things like blocks", it's not clear what you want us to do - delete his comments because you don't like them? Please, take a deep breath, and count to 1000. Backwards. In pig latin. While drinking a glass of chocolate milk. Then step away from the thoroughly soaked keyboard until it dries off, and the true relative importance of this incident soaks in. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering he made a direct personal attack/false accusation, I don't think I was unnecessarily rude. Most times, if a person is acting in good faith, and they're called a troll, they won't reply with an ice cream cone. :)

That said, there's still an accusation against me visible in the CFD. His comments are still visible there, and on his talk page. I hate being accused of things I never did.

It isn't simply a matter of me not liking them. They're outright false. They're directed at me. They're entirely unsubstantiated. He's accused me of trolling, and of attacks. He's warned me. I don't want any of that crap visible to anyone. And I don't see why I should have to put up with it. It's very much clear what I want to be done. I explicitly stated it. I won't personally remove comments from a CFD, even if they aren't votes. I won't personally remove someone else's comments from their own talk page (false or not, I have a personal interest in the matter). I haven't unnecessarily escalated things. I never said, "you aren't allowed to call me a troll!" I asked him which part he thought was trolling. I've done every single thing that could reasonably be expected of me. And telling me to take a deep breath is silly. I've patiently waited for two days, just to make sure that he had absolutely every single opportunity possible to correct his mistake. Bladestorm 18:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments like these abound in CFD's where there are ethnoreligionationalist things that are being challenged. In the larger scheme of things being called a "troll" means absolutely nothing. Civility is an ideal, and as one experienced in controversial Ethnoreligionationalist pages, one has to be thick-skinned, or argue in a more flowery style so that one sees who is crasses.Bakaman 18:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I say this in all seriousness, the first comment is full of incivility. The tone of the comment and some statements such as "My reply to that nonsense", "Screw that", "this sort of crap", etc.. are entirely unacceptable. This is a place to report incidents, reports should be made solely on factual content. With that said I suggest you stop trying to confront this user on his talk page. Such confrontations only make matters worse.--Jersey Devil 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I must say, I'm rather disappointed. Referring to a warning for trolling from someone who won't even say where the trolling occurred as nonsense is "entirely unacceptable", but actually making an accusation, and repeatedly reaffirming that accusation, while repeatedly refusing to provide a single diff or even rationale, is something I should simply accept? There used to be higher standards here. Bladestorm 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is time to drop it. Does it suck to be hit with vague, unsupported name calling? Yup. But at the end of the day, this is just escalating a situation long past the time it should have been put to bed. Pretty much every admin on here has been subjected to much worse name calling and accusations than this. Remind him of WP:CIVIL (which you already did) and move on.--Isotope23 18:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is the 'consensus', but it certainly is a shame, isn't it? Being hit with the same accusation repeatedly... it's irritating to say the least. But the idea that personal attacks are simply accepted as part of the CFD process, well, that's even worse. I guess I'll just stay out of CFD and AFD from now on. At least that sort of conduct still isn't acceptable on normal article talk pages. Bladestorm 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and removed that part of the argument that didn't seem to be about the category deletion, but more about the persons arguing. If it gets restored, I won't fight any more. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I spoke too soon. You really did come through for me in the end. Thank you. Bladestorm 19:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Starting a response to someone who edits mainly Jewish subjects on CFD on Category:Antisemitic people with "Oi..."[105], as Bladestorm did, is a pretty obvious piece of trolling only meant to bait me and inflame passions. I'm surprised beyond measure that Bladestorm has managed to present my rather restrained response to his baiting as incivility. Bladestorm has been pushing the matter for several days now first on the CFD page, then on my talk page, and now on this board. This editor's behavior only confirms my observation that the purpose of their comment was to distract the discussion from its subject and make it a personal issue. Beit Or 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

... That was what you meant by 'trolling'?!? I say 'Oi' all the time! (In real life) people make fun of me for it because I'm not jewish, but it's just a habit I've developed. (I also call people 'schmuck' and 'putz', if it matters. I also say, "holy snappin' crap" too often, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't matter.)

Heh... I guess since the topic was 'Anti-Semitic people', I can see you wondering... (the fact that you edit jewish articles is irrelevant, since I didn't research your background before commenting) but wouldn't it have saved a lot of trouble if you'd just said that from the beginning?

We actually went through all of this just because I sometimes say 'oi'?

Um, in the future, you might want to Assume Good Faith. Simply saying 'oi' isn't an attack against you or anyone else. It's relatively normal speech. And try to look at this now from my perspective. Everything I was doing was in good faith. Then I was accused. And you actually expected me to guess that a single two-letter word was the cause of your offense? That's a stretch.

Incidentally, you've just made another false accusation, when you (once again) said, "This editor's behavior only confirms my observation that the purpose of their comment was to distract the discussion from its subject and make it a personal issue"... but, um, I don't think I'm going to get too offended this time... Now that I know the reason, well, it's hard not to laugh. Seriously though, AGF; it's a pretty important concept here, and would've prevented you from snapping at people acting in good faith. And discussion. Yup. Discussion would've been good. Because there's no bloody way I could've possibly figured out which part you were talking about. Bladestorm 20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Bladestorm's incivility does not seem to stop, a brief block may not be unwarranted. Otherwise, this editor will keep flooding this forum with their incivil postings. Beit Or 20:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious??? You only now reveal that you made me struggle for two bloody days, just to find out that the reason you were insulting me was because I'd said, "oi", and you somehow assumed that was a personal attack... and when I (quite rightly) point out that this whole mess could've been avoided if you'd simply said so from the beginning (or better yet, not assumed that using common english somehow implies trolling), you think that warrants a block? Is this a twisted joke? Or are you suddenly realizing that you were wrong? Bladestorm 20:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you've been harassing me for several days despite all my attempts to cut this incident short. When I stopped respoding to you on CFD, you switched to my talk page, when I stopped respoding there, you moved on this board. All the while you were making uncivil comments like For the last frigging time, My reply to that nonsense... Screw that... ...this sort of crap has to stop you made me struggle for two bloody days. Combined, this incivility and harassment definitely warrant a block. Beit Or 21:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Of all the counterproductive attempts to cut an incident short... You refuse to explain what you mean and then talk superior about Bladestorm getting frustrated into using some vernacular expressions? You'll look better the sooner you stop talking, Beit Or. Don't troll WP:ANI. Bishonen | talk 21:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Your comment was extremely insulting and uncivil. Beit Or 18:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And true. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Such quips are useless, Bunchofgrapes.

Beit Or is a serious editor from whom I have never seen anything remotely characterizable as "trolling;" if anything he is distinguished by his reluctance to engage in time-wasting discussions like this one. I have to assume that Beit Or's intepretation of Bladestorm's intentions was influenced - and understandably so - by Bladestorm's questioning whether Nazis and holocaust deniers are respectively characterizable as antisemitic (the initial argument about Category:Nazis makes sense, but read further)[106].I find it disturbing that several commenters here seem oblivious to the obvious.Proabivouac 21:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Many people say Oi. "It is not polite, but it is not especially offensive. It is not to be confused with the Yiddish exclamation of dismay or exasperation "oy" or "oy vey"." Dan Beale 17:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)I can't believe people are still talking about this. However, if you insist on doing so, I think I can make it quick: I thought that calling people who tried to kill Hitler automatically antisemitic was a bad assumption to make. And I said that there were different possible reasons to deny the holocaust, including "poor education" and "ignorance". What's more, whether or not people assume good faith in me shouldn't depend on whether I tend to associate holocaust denial with antisemitism or simply ignorance. If it were true that he really was reluctant "to engage in time-wasting discussions like this one", then he would've simply explained his accusation or retracted it. Obviously, anybody who makes an accusation (or any claim, for that matter) in wikipedia is expected to be able to back it up.
As it is, since the original offending comment was removed from the CFD, and since I finally know the cause of the accusation (as peculiar as it was), I'm fine with letting it end here. If you still wish to discuss it, then you're welcome to take it up on my talk page, so the AN/I board can be freed up for more pressing matters. Bladestorm 04:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. It's interesting to see how people can take such different views on the same acts. You make me wait two days before I find out what you're accusing me of across pages, and you think that shows I'm harassing you for days. I repeatedly ask you to back up your allegations, and when I get upset after multiple refusals, you point out that I got upset. You accuse me of trolling just because I said 'oi' perfectly innocently, and yet you accuse me of incivility.

You know, I have to wonder how things would turn out if the roles were reversed. If I were to have seen someone start a reply with "Eh...", assumed bad faith, jumped to the conclusion that they were taking a jab at my being canadian, and then insulted and 'warned' them for their 'trolling'... would people take me seriously? And if he then pointed out just how wrong such actions were, could I then get away with demanding that he be blocked? For failing to accept that I can accuse people of whatever I like, without ever having to support those claims? Hmm... I suspect people wouldn't take that too seriously. Bladestorm 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oy, vey... the sorts of things people get into fights over on Wikipedia... *Dan T.* 17:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not just on Wikipedia. Consider the trouble one politician got into for innocently using the term "niggardly", or the trouble the director of communications at Taco Bell got into for using the term "pedagogical approach". Some people insist upon being offended by even the most inoffensive words. --MediaMangler 10:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:ProhibitOnions

ProhibitOnions (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - deletion log except

Above user has now twice used the admin tools in the dispute over the title of the article Newcastle station, in which they are directly involved and taking a firm side. The dispute is not yet resolved, no consensus has emerged, and the discussion is superseded by a broader one. Chris cheese whine 21:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't blocked or protected any pages. The extent to which admin tools have been used is "deleted to make room for move" -- which wouldn't require admin tools to begin with, if you yourself weren't giving each redir a dummy edit. Move wars are silly and disruptive -- the both of you should cut it out. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for categorising redirects. I started categorising random redirects a while back, I wasn't aware that performing such a useful function was frowned upon. The fact remains that the admin tools were used by an admin to get their way in a dispute, particularly trying to move an article away from a title suggested by a guideline. The merits of the move are still under discussion, but not relevant to this matter. Chris cheese whine 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Chriscf appears to be acting in such bad faith, accusing me of "abusing admin tools" (I haven't) or being involved in a "dispute" (I'm not), or quickly adding an edit history to every redirect he creates to prevent it being written over.

As to the substance of his accusation, I simply reverted his attempts to change the name of Newcastle Central Station to something else: first it was "Newcastle Central station", then it was "Newcastle station", now it's "Newcastle station, Tyne and Wear". I opened discussion on the article name, but despite my offering plenty of evidence for the common and correct name of the station [107], he wouldn't budge, stating, rather ridiculously, that some of the sources I provided were "biased (being based at the station themselves)", as if that somehow disqualified sources such as the Royal Station Hotel (for the record, my list also included local government sources, the BBC, and a report drafted by the British government). User:Dbam pointed him to the plaque on the front of the 160-year-old building [108], which he also ignored. (I should point out that other than renames and minor edits connected to them, I have not worked on this article.)

The details are irrelevant. You were involved in the discussion, you took a side, and then you used the tools. End of story. Chris cheese whine 01:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

He also made a similar move on Glasgow Central Station (an article I have never edited) and then, when a motion was quickly made to move it back, he claimed "we have a naming convention for this already, in which stations are "railway station", unless they have multiple modes of rail transport on-site", garnering several votes of agreement for the uncommon name he picked. Except that it wasn't true: There is no agreed-upon naming convention, and the disputed one that does exist states "The official name of the station should normally be used with the appropriate suffix, except where this would be ambiguous" - which hardly argues against "Glasgow Central Station".

You were involved in the discussion, you took a side, and then you used the tools. Chris cheese whine 01:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A further questionable action involved his proposed deletion of graphic station names. Note the use of the royal we in this exchange with User:DrFrench. The dispute in this case involved his proposed deletion of a number of graphics depicting Metro station names in the Calvert font, which was designed for the Metro. Chriscf deleted these from the articles (along with a similar set for the London Underground) and then listed them on IfD [109] without mentioning this on the relevant pages, or even using an edit summary when removing them from the articles, that indicated he proposed to delete the images.

And what precisely is wrong here? I put forward the reasons for removing them, and nobody presented a solid reason for keeping them there. All of which is irrelevant: You were involved in a dispute, you took a side, and then you used the tools. Chris cheese whine 01:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that discussion with this user leads nowhere, and daring to revert him gets one reported here. WP:POINT, anyone? ProhibitOnions ^(T) 00:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There patently is a dispute, and you patently are involved in it. You also patently did use the admin tools during the course of the dispute. You have stretched by ability to WP:AGF too far. Chris cheese whine 00:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that I have trimmed the above, as it relates to the substance of the dispute, which is not at issue at ANI. The issue is that of an administrator making use of the extra buttons while engaged in a content dispute, and would be the same regardless of the actual dispute. Chris cheese whine 00:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

All I see are deletion of redirects to ake way for a move; a move that was then reverted. Not exatly admin tool abuse. The only real action I see that possibly needs to be taken here is adding this name dispute about a single train station to WP:LAME.--Isotope23 01:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If that is all you see, then you are missing the fact that the user was actively involved in the dispute. I would not have moved the pages back to the until-recently-accepted form, had this user not insisted on using the "delete" button to enforce their position. Chris cheese whine 01:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Luna had it right above. Look, if Prohibit was blocking editors in a dispute or page protecting then we would have a problem... but this is much ado about nothing. I expect at this point ProhibitOnions will not move the page a 3rd time until the discussion on the talkpage is complete. Other than that, there is nothing here that requires another admin to intervene.--Isotope23 01:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming conventions for discussion of what happens when disputes like this can't get settled in a reasonable fashion. Please find a way to resolve this issue several miles of there. Newyorkbrad 01:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So, was "stop using the tools to forcibly move the page until the discussion reaches conclusion" not a reasonable aim? Chris cheese whine 01:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't studied the specific dispute, but ordinarily that's considered a reasonable request. Newyorkbrad 02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So why am I being shouted down for trying to achieve that specific aim here? Chris cheese whine 02:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is shouting you down Chris. See what I said above. I expect at this point ProhibitOnions will stop moving this page and continue discussion on the naming. Other than that, I'm not exactly sure what you are expecting here.--Isotope23 02:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My expectations were twofold - that the user stop using the tools while engaged in a dispute, and at least acknowledge the fact that they are in fact involved in the dispute (as opposed to turning up here and lying about it). Oh well ... Chris cheese whine 02:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Second the motion that WP:LAME applies here. I am accused, essentially, of disagreeing with the above user; I opened up discussion on his moves, and reverted them after a time, in agreement with other users, when he failed to provide substantial reasons for them. The renames were his only contributions to the articles in question. Note that while he bizarrely accuses me of a "personal attack" above, he has no problem calling me a "liar" in the paragraph above. He is still insisting I used "the tools" somehow against him, despite other users demonstrating that I did not. This, sadly, has been the tenor of previous discussions with him. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 07:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The move history suggests otherwise. According to the move history, you moved it to Newcastle Central Station. This "undiscussed" (as you put it) move was reversed. You then used the "delete" button twice to repeat your original move. As for personal attacks, I am not saying that you are a liar. I am saying that you have lied (verifiably) in this discussion, in saying you are not party to this dispute when the evidence clearly does not bear this out (I guess that can't be you editing the talk page, resolving to "just move it", and then doing so). Chris cheese whine 20:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not taking sides as I dont believe in move wars but I agree with ProhibitOnions (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), the name of the stations were correct as they were, for example, Newcastle Central Station is not Newcastle Station, Haymarket Metro Station is not Newcastle Haymarket as it was moved to, this is stupid this, the names were fine as they were and these users who keep moving the pages seem to be trying to cause trouble, I everyone including me needs to calm down here and leave them as they were, I mean who cares what the article title is? as long as it has sourced and factually accurate information like an encyclopedia article should have. Regards - Tellyaddict 19:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So, you are taking sides, then. Chris cheese whine 20:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In principle, I don't see a massive problem with admins reverting stuff when involved if they are on the "undoing" side of things, but PO was clearly not "undoing", but "doing". All I want here is some confirmation that (1) admins using the mop and bucket to resolve disputes they are directly involved in (whatever form that dispute may take, and whatever extra button they may have used) is wrong, (2) if an admin wants to perform a controversial obstructed move, they have to go to WP:RM like everyone else. Do I get this confirmation? Chris cheese whine 20:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am trying not to take sides but I do agree with ProhibitOnions (talk · contribs · count), I am not doubting or ignoring anyone elses opinion but I have to say I agree with him, Regards - Tellyaddict 11:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• You can add me to the list of people who don't really see the issue here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Potential WP:BLP issues with WP:BJAODN

Is BJAODN expected to follow the BLP policy, despite the disclaimers? I ask this because, upon reading the archives, I found at least one statement that clearly violates this policy. Since it wasn't even very funny, I removed it [110] There are probably more. If this is a concern, the BJAODN archives should be vetted for particularly problematic statements of this nature. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of BLP is that it applies across the project, not just articles. Weren't we talking about deleting all that at one point anyway? It might be a good idea if there's a lot of bad stuff. Frise 03:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It was talked about and, IMO, examples such as this (and possibly other) BLP violations are examples suggesting that deletion is warranted. There appeared, however, to be consensus that culling the totally un-funny and policy-violating content and history merging it all into five-or-so archives would be appropriate. It probably should be done sometime. We need to be able to actually manage the content and monitor it for violations. --Iamunknown 03:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of junk in there. Sorting through it all looking for BLP vios probably isn't worth the effort. Frise 03:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The effort expended isn't worth protecting us the Wikimedia Foundation from claims of libel? I think that it is. --Iamunknown 03:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean it isn't worth sorting through when the whole mess can just be deleted. Frise 04:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) IMO, yes without æquivocation. They should also be vetted of fair use images and images with patently false licensing. I currently have watchlisted every fair use image I found in all 61 main archives but, as my watchlist is rather large, they have been swallowed up. BJAODN has several complications that really need to be addressed and were brought up in the recent mfd. I originally meant to bring them to the forefront on the talk page and link there from the VPs, but have not mustered up the energy yet. Any help with removing the stuff that blatantly needs removal would be sorely appreciated. --Iamunknown 03:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• There is a LOT of stuff that needs to be removed, and most of it isn't even funny. A lot of "OMG HE IS GAY!!!" childish vandalism (aimed at living people) seems to have made it in for some reason, and it will have to be taken out. This ultimately should be gone over and culled, with only genuinely funny and non-defamatory info left in. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, really, a lot of stuff in there simply are not funny. We do have the liberty of removing lame entries, right? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Um, yes, I believe so. Grandmasterka 03:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes indeed. --Iamunknown 03:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Those pages are full of violations. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, just delete it. Frise 04:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed about a dozen violations so far. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I might end up deleting over 2/3 of the content because they are exceedingly lame. Shall I proceed? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• That sounds about right to me. I'd enjoy the pages a lot more if the unfunny crap and vandalism was removed. And there is a lot of it. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• I have removed some WP:BLP-offending content as well. I think before we proceed more we may wish to notify users on the main talk page of the BJAODN page cluster. --Iamunknown 04:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oi vey. COME ON people. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Don't just go deleting stuff just because it's not funny... they're called Bad Jokes after all... --Edokter (Talk) 13:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• While I wont argue that most of BJAODN isn't funny, the fact that its clearly labelled as humor, not serious articles, and in most cases can be classified as satire/parody/opinion (pick one, depending on case) would easily remove any libel/slander claim. Just make sure they actually are funny. I'd even reccomend reinstating the bush one only for the revert edit summary. That made me laugh. -M^ask 23:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remember: under US law (where the servers happen to reside), you can say or write whatever you want about a public figure without fear of lawsuit. So making fun of the president's sexual habits is permitted, & common sense would lead to the conclusion that public figures are excluded from the concerns of WP:BLP -- although we obviously don't want any errors in Wikipedia for any reason. (BTW, yes I know what day it is; but I am not joking here.) -- llywrch 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not true at all. The standard is higher for a public figure, but not non-existent. You have to have A.) known the information was untrue and B.) intended to cause harm, not just inform. Contrast this with average joe, where the standard is just untrue negative things. Where the hell the 'write whatever you want without fear of a lawsuit' comes from, I dont know, but you might want to talk to the dean if it was a school -M^ask 21:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I remove the WP:NOT violations of BJAODN? (that would be all of it) ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Did we get no further in plans to zap most of it as a copyvio then? I thought interested parties were going to be given some time to salvage and source the "funniest" material and the rest was going. --kingboyk 21:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)