Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive204

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Urgent notice 2 Pages loading slowly in Internet Explorer 3 My block of Rbj 4 Vandalism 5 POV editor 6 Block evasion 7 Gen. von Klinkerhoffen 8 User:NuclearUmpf 9 Reverting of 3RR page 10 Spammer 11 Malicious page move bot 12 POV pushing 12.1 Community ban proposed, please give your opinion below 12.2 Sockpuppets 13 Indef block of NuclearUmpf/Zerofaults 14 Jeffpw 15 Carpet9 16 WP:AIV 17 Request block for 84.81.129.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 18 Enzedbrit 19 On-going and Long-term Harassment 20 Block review 21 RfC/Personal attacks 22 User:Guettarda 23 Nkras sock 24 Repeated insertion of unsubstantiated passage in Manchukuo 25 ban evasion 26 Vandalism by User:195.194.195.11- a likely sockpuppet of banned user User:Wikiccol 27 Pacon and his/her vandalism 28 Sock-block requested 29 Disparaging redirect: diabeetus 30 User:Ryulong is ... 31 MONGO 32 User:serafin 33 Multiple uploads of copyvio images 34 User:Sir-John-Peters and David Irving

[edit] Urgent notice

Please delete JzG's recent post on the User Talk page of Chicagostyledog, as well as the record of it in the edit history. It contains a disclosure of personal information that violates the Wikipedia privacy policy. Dino 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't even play the blame game [1], JzG did no such thing. — Moe 03:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the person who originally posted that information was Prodego on January 15. This just compounds the administrative misconduct. Dino 03:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I see is JzG identifying another sockpuppet.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Chicagostyledog is probably a sockpuppet of Joehazelton. You may ask Gamaliel; he will no doubt confirm my suspicion that it was Joehazelton. Delete the post. Dino 03:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It contains no personal information whatsoever. Personal information is stuff like phone numbers, addresses, names, social security numbers, and the like, not what you are alluding to. No need to delete edit(s). --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit-conflict] I revealed this connection first, based on the "from" header of emails from BryanFromPalatine. I did so to add evidence for Dean being a sock, since I had just blocked an employee of the WMF under edit pattern evidence. :). When Bryan complained I removed it, then contacted Fred Bauder, who told me that it did not need to be oversighted, so it assumedly OK to post it. I would like some external opinions though. Prodego ^talk 03:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

JUST REMOVE THE NAME. Dino 03:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

YOU DON"T NEED TO SHOUT. It doesn't take an rocket scientist to figure out the last name given it's in your username. If you didn't want your last name on Wikipedia, you probably shouldn't have used it in your username. — Moe 03:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dino, if you have problems with personal information, please visit requests for oversight. Yuser31415 04:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is even necessary. I mean I'm not even involved in any of this nonsense but even I could put 1+1+1 together and get 3. Nothing has been revealed in that post that a 12 year old couldn't figure out on their own from spending about 5 minutes at WP:AN/I on any given day since we seem to be discussing a certain set of editors almost daily. That said, I concur with Newyorkbrad below, "BryanFromPalatine" should be used here on wiki just so it is clear which editor we are talking about.--Isotope23 14:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't edit my comments. If you have a problem with something I've posted, hit my talkpage.--Isotope23 15:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A new Roskam based IP sock just hit JzG's page HERE IP 128.241.108.232 - FAAFA 03:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of protocol, we should refer on-wiki to "BryanFromPalatine" rather than his real full name, although I agree that under the circumstances nothing has really been disclosed. Newyorkbrad 03:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[This section has been substantially redacted. Any questions, please e-mail me.] Dino 14:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked DeanHinnen for 24 hours due to his continually removing other editors comments from this thread. Even beyond any privacy concerns, his edits are taking out non-privacy related information. Enough is enough.--Isotope23 16:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't edit the comments of others. If there is something OFFICEable, use the process to ask for it. But there, in my judgement, isn't. I see Isotope23 just gave you a 24 hour block for that and for the record, I support it. Use the time to reflect on trying to fit in here better. please. Your style isn't working very well. ++Lar: t/c 16:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

To be nice, I've redacted the part that I suspect most offends him. I didn't restore anyone elses comments just because with edits here it would be difficult, but if anyone wants to add back what they said, feel free. The biggest issue I saw (and the reason I blocked him) was because he was selectively editing comments and leaving parts that completely changed the meaning and tone of the posts.--Isotope23 16:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

*Moe readds his comment (and the comment he was responding to) that was removed* I don't believe my reinsertion has violated anything, nor was my comment improper, so I have readded it. — Moe 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I only just noticed this. DeanHinnen acknowledges that his family name is Hinnen, talks openly about being the brother of BryanFromPalatine, calls him Bryan in the RFAR, but to use the name Bryan Hinnen is a privacy violation? Riiiiiight. So we ban Dean for privacy violations, yes? Because it was only by violating Bryan's privacy through "outing" that he got unblocked in the first place, wasn't it? Guy (Help!) 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• WP:POINT, Guy... Georgewilliamherbert 00:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pages loading slowly in Internet Explorer

For the last 24 hours Wikipedia pages have been slow in loading and rendering when using Internet Explorer for Macintosh.

Pages would load maybe 5k of data and "park" for a few minutes before finally rendering.

I've seen no noticable change in the look of pages that would explain this new behaviour. What's going on?

Franny Wentzel 08:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The technical village pump is probably a better place to ask this sort of question. --ais523 09:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I noticed such behavior when my hard drive is filled with temporary internet files. Perhaps yours needs a cleaning too. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Use SeaMonkey for Mac. Frutti di Mare 13:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Err... Why are you using a very old browser like that anyway? If your computer is that old, take a look at any of the others that are available but Microsoft stopped supporting that browser a long while ago, and it renders a significant part of the web incorrectly.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Unfortunatly the "other" browsers available are even worse than MSIE. The problem only showed up a couple days ago and rendering isn't so much the problem as the long delay in getting Wiki pages.Franny Wentzel 02:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My block of Rbj

I recently blocked Rbj (talk · contribs) (see #Restoring banned user Nkras' edits in userspace? above). A rundown of the situation:

• Nkras (talk · contribs) was community banned recently. Several users have taken to reverting Nkras edits per the banning policy, including edits to talk pages;
• Rbj restored several such removed comments on a number of occasions (to Talk:Marriage: 1, 2; to User talk:Rbj: 1, 2), and was hostile to people informing him about the situation;
• The comments Rbj restored to his talk page included a threat that Nkras would be getting his lawyer involved (evidently directed against blocking admin Physicq210), and one of the comments restored to Talk:Marriage was seen by some as a threat to recruit meatpuppets or sockpuppets to edit war on the article (though I didn't consider that credible);
• Spurred by this edit summary ("these are words i might say. i take ownership of them.") I blocked Rbj, for the threats that he took ownership of.

Jimbo has now lifted the block, so clearly my take on the situation wasn't as evident as I had thought. So, in the spirit of self-improvement, was my judgment off here? --bainer (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That's just ridiculous, Thebainer. Just goes to show that WP:DICK can affect anybody at any time. Let this be a lesson to us all. Jeffpw 23:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

who is the dick? and what is your evidence? (vapid words are easy to toss around.) r b-j 02:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo is off-wiki at the moment so he can't reply. But I'll cut and paste; what follows was my reply to Jimbo and it's an open question to everybody:

then what is WP:BAN supposed to mean?: "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing." Rbj is fighting to ensure that legal threats remain on Wikipedia.

If legal threats are not supposed to be on Wikipedia, and Rbj is going to assert that they cannot be deleted from his user page, then how can they be removed? — coelacan talk — 00:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A bit of Wikilawyering here but WP:BAN specifically states that banned users' edits from prior to blocking don't fall under the, "enforcement by reverting edits" clause. Unless Nkras' edits were in themselves removeable per policy then they shouldn't be removed. (→Netscott) 00:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No wikilawyering necessary. The comments were made after being banned and were legal threats addressed to Physicq (because of his closure of the thread at the CN reading the consensus to ban). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fella just showed up in on my userpage cursing at me.[2] — coelacan talk — 02:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

no, this is an example of you not being an honest person. i said that although you don't think your shit stinks, it actually does stink. where were you cursed?

but now i will repeat, you Coelacan, are not an honest player. you game the system for your advantage, you want your biased POV to be accepted as NPOV, and when you are called on it, you revert to nasty and underhanded behavior to try to get your way. you're not honest.

you can accurately, if you want, call that an insult, at least to your integrity, but where is the curse?

add to that, where did i once threaten anyone, legally or in any other manner?

Jimbo ain't dumb and neither am i. just because you arrogantly crap on our face and call it caviar, does not mean that others are so gullible to sense it as such. r b-j 02:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My take -- Jimbo was right to lift the block. Rbj has violated policy by acting as a proxy for a banned user, and may deserve a block, but an indefinite one is not necessary from that. The block reason indicated that Rbj was blocked for legal threats, but he didn't himself make any legal threats, so that's not right. Yes, those edits should be removed as they are banned user edits. But an indef block is only justified if we agree that Rbj is making legal threats and I don't see that he is. However, I will make sure that the threat is removed as a banned user edit, and if Rbj pushes the issue we can block him (temporarily) for proxying. Mangojuice^talk 02:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

and just to add another point, there was other content that Nkras put down that stood, in its own right. the content has value to be considered whether it came from Charles Manson or Nelson Mandela and it was being conveniently censored along with the legal threat that i did not make and was wrongfully ascribed to me. it's this content that i was taking ownership of myself. and it is content that i repeated so often myself that it's just bothersome to do it again. r b-j 02:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, anything Nkras put before his ban would be evaluated in its own right, as it should be, and would only be removed if it would under normal circumstances be removed from any user. But edits made after his ban may be reverted by any editor, and WP:BAN is pretty clear on this-if you chose to reinstate his edits, they were then your edits. Since you chose to reinstate his legal threats and personal attacks, they were, from that time forward, your legal threats and personal attacks. You realized this, at one point you specifically stated that you "take ownership" of his meatpuppetry threat. I don't even see any indication that you've decided not to do this anymore. Finally, quit cursing at Coelacan. I started the AN/I thread regarding your reinstatement of Nkras' edits, so if you really feel the need to curse at someone, do it at me. Whatever you can think of, I've been called worse anyway. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

i haven't cursed Coelacan. there is no example of it. repeating a false premise multiple times doesn't make it true.

you can also repeat it all you want, but i made no personal threats, legal or otherwise, to anyone at anytime. repeating a false premise multiple times does not make it true and is reflective of something less than forthrightness.

as User:Petesmiles said, i'm not very patient with stupid people. well, it's not quite accurate since i haven't identified anyone as stupid at all. but i have identified some statements as blatently false or blatently POV skewed. since WP is uncensored, the simple descriptive term for this is "bullshit". and when someone, stupid or smart, presents such bullshit to me to accept as true or of value, i'm not very patient with it. i read it for what it is and ascribe motive to it. and if the motive is one of arrogance or dishonesty ("we give you this shit and say it's caviar! ha, ha, ha, ha!"), i will say as much. it's not diplomatic, but it's not a curse. it is not cursing anyone.

these repeated false premises are bullshit. they are not persuasive. they're crap. i don't recognize them as having value and i say so clearly and forthrightly. and i take ownership of that. but i don't take ownership of what you say that i say, just because you say it doesn't make it so (i think, but am not sure, that this was the simple truth that Jimbo could clearly see).

so it's full of crap. now what are you going to do? oh... you just cannot handle it when someone so openly rejects your crap and calls it what it is. so you act to have that person indefinitely blocked. the term for that is underhanded, and, frankly immature. r b-j 03:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your tendency to be pedantic and wordy is not helping your case at all. Consider yourself lucky that I am not obsessively pursuing the removal of the legal threat on your talk page, an act that many others would have done. You can say that you did not directly insult anyone, but who here is so stupid as to not get the implied meanings of your words? Use your head; we're not idiots that only see what is spoon-fed to us. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"pendantic" can be applied to multiple directions.

i never said i did not "directly insult anyone". in fact i think i conceeded that one could "call that an insult". what i said is that i never threatened anyone. not once. and i said i haven't cursed anyone. and there is no example of me doing so.

also, i explicitly took exception here with User:Petesmiles observation that i'm not very patient with stupid people. it's stupid and dishonest statements presented to me as factual or valuable that i have little patience with and i reserve the right to evaluate them for what they are. actually, i think nearly everyone involved here is pretty smart. but there are some whom i would not ascribe much integrity, either in some of the words that they say or in the oft blatently hypocritical actions they have made. they are trying to censor dissent.

BTW, you might note that Coelacan has exerted control over his/her usertalk page, the very thing that was being denied to me and got me indefinitely blocked for a few hours for so exerting. what would happen if some user:X reversed every action or selected actions of Coelacan on his/her own user talk space. whom would you block? the hypocrisy here is thick enough to slice. r b-j 04:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You came into my talk page using foul language and obsessing about my bowels. I am certainly within my rights to revert you. And I assure you that if you restore Nkras's threats of meatpuppetry to Talk:Marriage again, you will be reverted again. The page had to be semi-protected because of those threats, and you've got no right to continue repeating them. — coelacan talk — 06:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Mangojuice for that comment, I think that's the most accurate. Rbj was doing the wrong thing by restoring the comments, and was approaching proxying, but in the end, it was the wrong call to make to attribute the consequences of Nkras' comments to Rbj, and I apologise for making a bad block and causing this fuss. Time for some pie now. --bainer (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

• I recommend blocking User:75.74.105.208. Both of their edits are clear vandalism. Tim Long 04:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV editor

I'm concerned about the pattern of editing by Burk Hale (talk • contribs). Hale began by adding information sourced to someone named "Elder Hale" to several articles, all of which was remarkably POV and referenced to a certainly unreliable source. Will Beback and I both brought up concerns about his contributions on Hale's talk page, and I noted several relevant guidelines and policies. Hale, however, made only minor changes to his additions and continues to push a POV and to cite a specific unreliable source that I suspect is Hale's own website. Hale's contribution history isn't large, so I haven't provided diffs. I would block Hale, but given that I have a clear POV regarding the subject matter that Hale is editing and because part of the problem is POV-pushing on Hale's part, I would like fellow administrative comment on Hale to determine whether a block (or something else) is the best course of action. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This editor appears to be the same person as Rangeguide (talk · contribs), who created 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress, which is one of the worst POV/OR messes I've seen in a while. -Will Beback · † · 02:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress article has since been cleaned up, in large part by User:Zantastik. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

. . .which were subsequently effectively reverted by Burk Hale. I'm now convinced the editor is not interested in adhering to the neutral point of view policy. I am curious as to whether other administrators would support a POV-pushing block (given my comments above, I'm not completely comfortable doing it otherwise). · j e r s y k o talk · 04:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block evasion

Kazantakis60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) – block evade through sockpuppets. Consistent, repetitive, routinely non-obvious vandalism mixed with the odd harmless but generally pointless edits.

Account history: You'll note that each new account was created after the previous was blocked.

• 23:01, 31 December 2006 Clancy60 (talk / contribs) New user account[3]
  • Edit to "Brandon Routh"
  • Blocked 28 January 2007[4]
• 23:20, 29 January 2007, Fleming60 (talk / contribs) New user account[5]
  • Edit to "Brandon Routh"
  • Blocked 8 February 2007[6]

• 09:51, 10 February 2007 User:Ellroy20 (talk / contribs) New user account[7]
  • Edit to "Brandon Routh"
  • Blocked 13 February 2007[8]
• 00:33, 15 February 2007 Kazantakis60 (Talk / contribs) New user account
  • Edit to "Brandon Routh"
  • Blocked 15 February 2007 [9]

A quick perusal through the user/s "contributions" and you'll see that this is a block evade: it's the same edits, with just a little variety thrown in just to waste time. This user has a fetish about Brandon Routh (see above); likes to change the ethnicity[10][11][12][13] or religion[14][15][16][17] of various actors and characters; change birthdates, middle names, mother's occupation, etc[18][19][20][21]. (NOTE: Links appear in 4s, 1 for each successive sock). All this is the kind of stuff that's not obvious vandalism. I posted this on AIV, they dismissed it and suggested here.

The amount of man-hours of research and correction that this user is producing should be reason enough to permanently block all accounts and take quicker action the next time s/he surfaces. It would be nice if something could be done to determine if it is all coming from a single IP and seal that one off. I do not want to have to go through this every single time s/he pops up.

For further background, please also see my discussion with User Talk:Kuru#Vandalism. Thank you. --SigPig|talk 06:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gen. von Klinkerhoffen

A user listed Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) at AIV. I'm not 100% sure on this one, and I'm not confident enough yet to block him/her. You can get the whole story in the space of 2 mins by checking the contribs and the user talk page. Thoughts? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be a non-English speaker who does not know that we do not censor Wikipedia. I will inform him of such. If he persists, then the block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Screw it. YTMND trolling.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Missed those two edit summaries. Block endorsed (naturally), and thanks Ryu. Daniel.Bryant 05:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:NuclearUmpf

From my Talk:

MONGO is being harassed regarding the ED speculation regarding his employer is again. The offending edit is here. The request that the edit be retracted is here. The hostage-holding (deny where you work or I will not remove my speculation about where you work) is here. The offending user is under arbcom sanction, as I suspect you already know. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked the edits and agree entirely: NuclearUmpf's behaviour is both calculated and completely unacceptable. This is on top of ArbCom sanctions, an article ban for disruption, and numerous blocks for violating ArbCom sanctions. I have blocked NuclearUmpf while we discuss what should be done. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Prophetic words from Zer0faults: beware the passive agressive, many wrongs, many apologies. Thatcher131 16:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really get that. But I do get that Nuclear is trolling MONGO, and I think we've seen enough of MONGO being trolled for one lifetime. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I asked him to remove it and he chose to play games. My comments made here are factual.--MONGO 16:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Nuclear is playing passive aggressive games. (Who me? Was I not supposed to say that?) (Hence the reference to his comment about similar tactics by another user.) I find it hard to believe that Nuclear was unaware of trolling by Cplot et al. claiming that MONGO should not edit certain articles due to his place of employment. Therefore (and also because of the "Who me? attitude in followup to MONGO's removal request) I think the reference was deliberate and calculated. Thatcher131 16:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No doubts on that score. Definitely calculated. The degree of evil is uncertain, but it scores an easy ten on the troll-o-meter. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering how many times his name has shown up on WP:AE and/or request for clarification at WP:RfAr, I'm really wondering if Zer0's personality is condusive with the effort to build an encylopedia. I'm not sure this can be handled at the community level, so perhaps it is time to take it back up to ArbComm with the hope of final action. His statement of deny it and I'll remove it is beyond acceptable behavior as regardless of where or for whom Mongo works, it shouldn't need to be publicly disclosed and even if disclosed in the past does not need to be repeated if he does not wish to advertise it now. --StuffOfInterest 16:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it necessary to involve ArbCom or can we go with a community ban? --Ideogram 09:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC) must ... read ... before ... post ...

Harassment and Trollish behaviour. Zer0faults commits a big mistake by saying it is not about privacy while asking MONGO to confirm a private issue!. Then he asks us to AGF! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this message could be considered the final nail in the coffin. He pretty much states he will now use sock puppet accounts to harass other users. I won't even go into the derogatory. --StuffOfInterest 17:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting of 3RR page

Dear Administrators, User:Artaxiad has posted a 3RR report today, accusing User:AdilBaguirov. Although the report was false, because links under revert 2 and 3 were the same, administrator Dmcdevit blocked the user User:AdilBaguirov. Quickly after that User:Artaxiad (formerly also known as User:Nareklm caught for sockpuppetry and unpunished) has removed his false report. I have restored the report and added a comment indicating the concern, yet User:Artaxiad now started an edit war at Wikipedia 3RR reporting site reverting my comment edit. Can you please, address the issue. Below are (1) the original false 3RR report by Artaxiad, (2) Artaxiad's removal of the report after blockage of AdilBaguirov, (3) my comment, and (4) the deliberate revert of 3RR comment page by Artaxiad:

(1)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=109649139 (2)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=109652101 (3)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=109657277 (4)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=109658298

I would like to find out why this user Artaxiad (a.k.a. Nareklm) is given so much freedom to abuse other contributor's basic reporting and RR rights. Atabek 22:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The user was blocked for edit warring right after he was blocked and warned and who are you? why do you support adil so much? thats a big question, i removed my report because he already got blocked. Artaxiad 22:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the user was blocked for alleged 3RR on Tigranes the Great page (it says so on User's talk page), as reported and removed by yourself after the fact of blockage. This seems to be a clear blackmail and an oversight case. I am just a concerned user reporting your reverts of 3RR page(!!!), the administrators are welcome to check my editing record to see who I am. I have no desire to engage in further discussion and will let the administrators decide. Thanks. Atabek 22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but he was edit warring on the other pages, also restoring a certain version is considered a revert, and I think Dominic knows what he does, he violated it. Artaxiad 22:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You guys should stop reporting eachothers. There should be something done to stop Armenian/Azeri reportings. It has become a reporting war and is becoming very disruptive. May I suggest two administrators following those articles and hadling the edit wars insteed of such reportings? They aren't done in good faith anyway. One side reporting the other to get the other silenced (from both sides) has become out of proportion and isen't helping the issue. Reporting incidences should be done for the better, but here the situation has made it that this tool is abused. In any way, the users know already who the concerned admins are and can use their user pages insteed of "spamming" the incidents and dragging uninvolved administrators in this intestine conflict. Fad (ix) 23:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, however, the favor started from user Artaxiad who made a false 3RR report. I am just reporting it because the consequence of his misconduct is blockage of the user based on false report as one of the reasons. This counter-productive terrorizing of usernames and notices should be stopped, as the user in question Artaxiad (formerly Nareklm) should understand that false reporting, reverting and edit warring is not going to change the contributor's opinion neither their positions. What goes around comes around, so it's essential to use Talk pages and provide arguments there. Atabek 01:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the false report, right now I have hard time digesting Nareklm uses of a sock, and in my eyes this suspicion that he would do this again for me will remain. The same with you, just to remind you. In any event, if your issue about the misreporting is true, bring it with the admin who blocked him. I don't know in which article Adil was engaged in this revert war, but it will sure not be as worst as what he's doing on the NK. After uneasy months of negotiations with both parties, the NK had finally peace, Adil came in, edit warred, ended up with its closing. The article was opened again, again edit waring, again it was closed, opened again, and again. If Adil wasn't blocked, for sure the article will again be closed. I requested Grandmaster to comment on that three time, he knew that there was an agreement on the specific issues Adil was engaged in, he decided to remain silent. His choice, but I just want to remind you that NK was one of the few articles in which we were able to work on some level of peace and Adil has sabotaged that. I expect at least one Azeri editor to ask him to stop. Fad (ix) 02:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not a false report admins know what they do, that was 4 reverts go look at it yourself, and you're not going to get me blocked for changing my username since admins did it, so stop saying things like that and when you revert stop saying vandalism thats one reason no one wants to cooperate with you adil and dacy. Artaxiad 01:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Changing of names should not be allowed just on the middle of a conflict, I don't know what your motives were, but you should have waited at least a little bit. Anyway, its done. Fad (ix) 02:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

NK article is a separate subject, which should not be a matter of discussion on ANI page. However, I should say that at any time when you have compromise on some page, there can be someone, who quite legitimately appears with additional references and opinion, which is often hard to deny. So this is an ongoing process, and it's not appropriate or helpful to concentrate on personality just because you don't agree with him or with his references, especially as aggressively as you do. Personally, I have nothing against Artaxiad/Nareklm, my problem is with the fact that he is only involved in reverting every single one of my edits, with or without a reason, with or without understanding, reading the content of it or references thereof. And that should be stopped. Wikipedia is not a witch hunt place, and what goes around comes around. Atabek 06:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Like i said if you respect me we can make progress but all you do is go around telling people they vandalize etc, that is very disrespectful and at this rate it will not stop unless both parties agree, the information you add is POV and I dislike everything about it I've never seen you make a good edit all you do is add stuff that nationalists would do or you go help Adil and dacy revert, especially March days. It's common sense stop adding stuff that are not appropriate for Wikipedia I can make way more articles saying Azeris did this and that but I don't because its useless. If you refrain from adding content that is offensive, POV and disrespectful this will stop. Artaxiad 06:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is not for respecting personalities, but for contributing to the encyclopedia. Myself and few other users made major contribution to March Days article with nearly 25+ references, with which you agreed as it was well balanced, until one day User:Aivazovsky appeared and destroyed (clearly vandalized) the whole page. He can't even explain why he did it on Talk page now, neither did you ever complain about the vandalization and removal of well quoted references to Armenian victims provided on that page. In any case, my message was addressed to Fadix and not to you. To continue thread don't use ANI page, as the thread will be left unanswered. Atabek 06:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spammer

70.224.58.15 has added links to Gamefreaks 365, a gaming website, to numerous gaming articles. I noticed that in their forums, only 58 of 1500 users have ever posted, leading me to believe they aren't all that popular, and that this may be a move to get hits. I have removed the links from all articles that have been edited since the IP's edit, leaving the way clear for a admin rollback on the remaining articles.--Drat (Talk) 03:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Issued level 4 warning and rolled back edits. rereport to WP:AIV if spamming continues. -Loren 06:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malicious page move bot

There is a malicious page move bot operating from a large IP range with multiple sleeper accounts. I've used my steward access to temporarily gain access to the local CheckUser interface to help counter it, with the approval of several administrators and a CheckUser in the administrator channel. They are operating from Comcast Cable Communications, in the ranges 69.104.0.0–69.111.255.255, 69.180.0.0/15, 69.226.194.0/23, 71.192.0.0–71.207.255.255, and 71.128.0.0–71.159.255.255. Some accounts they've used include Brheed Zonabp84, Maglonj72, Eliaragirlrn66, Gseandiyh79, Gwuen Galeus1978, Kzaaralmb, and Wiuttynametg. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:02:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the Checkuser in question. I've hard-blocked 69.181.0.0/16 as a preventative measure. This will probably catch a lot of innocent bystanders, but there's no helping it. Everybody be on the lookout for Brian Peppers-related vandalism. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks also to the numerous, numerous people who have helped move the pages back and delete the crud. Antandrus (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw it happening, but can't only administrators undo page moves? — MichaelLinnear 03:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Users can revert page moves so long as the redirect made during the move is not altered. Then an admin is required.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And a Happy Brian Peppers Day to All! JDoorjam JDiscourse, who has waited a year to say that. 03:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes--and then an admin needs to delete the garbage redirect. I think we might get an extra "revert" button on the move log (do non-admins see that? don't remember) Antandrus (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC) -- Yes, non-admins have a revert button: I just looked at it logged out. It's in the move log, and makes reverting these fairly easy. Antandrus (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In the future, Jimbo and everyone else should not give an exact date for the "return" of something. —Centrx→talk • 03:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, that is kind of setting yourself up for mayhem to occur. — MichaelLinnear 03:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this the same person? Real96 03:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Test run? — MichaelLinnear 03:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Is it User:Flameviper? Because, on one of his socks, he used Elaragril66 which is similar to User:Elaragirl. He was banned for a comment made on her talk page. Real96 03:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it is definitely not. I doubt Flameviper has the technical skills. — MichaelLinnear 06:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV pushing

User Patchouli has unilaterally added POV edits to Iran/Islam related articles, and has reverted edits that removed the POV. He has used the pejorative term "Mullah-in-cheif" on the Assembly of Experts. Please see [22] for the diff. Please see [23] for the discussion. He has used the pejorative neologism "Mullahcracy" on the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran article ([24]), the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists article (see history for reverts [25], and discussion [26]), and the History of fundamentalist Islam in Iran article (see history for reverts [27])

He has pushed POV in many articles. For example he added "It seems without question that the government of Iran is clerical fascist…" on the Clerical fascism article (see history for his reverts and edits [28], and the discussion [29]). And has only added blogs and editorials for sources of this.

Another example of his POV pushing is [30].

He added a section called Nicknames to the Iran article and wrote "One nickname of Iran is Land of Mullahs" [31]. Like most of his POV edits he reverted editors attempts of removing his POV (you will see over three reverts on seperate occasions bases on the "Land of Mullahs" edit [32]).

When I complained about him making unilateral POV edits without discussion he merely replied "I am proud to have reverted your censorship" [33].

On the [Khatami] article he wrote of Khatami "He has received criticism inside and outside the Islamic Republic and it is not known how a mullah can bring freedom." (Please see the history for the extensive amount of unilateral edits [34]).

Many others have had problems with Patchouli's POV, what I have provided is only the tip of the iceberg. See [35], [36], [37], and [38]. Agha Nader 02:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

• I have had a lot of trouble with Patchouli's edits just recently, so I'll be adding my findings as I go along. For one, see Using terrorist opposition group as a 'background information' link. Very misleading to link to a terrorist opposition group's claims as simply "some background." The Behnam 03:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Also, note this series of revert warring. Someone removed an undue weight POV issue about some magazine's opinion of Ali Khamenei (see [39] for the relevant discussion). But Patchouli edit warred over this: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47] (this one uses a different POV source, Daniel Pipes),[48], [49], [50], [51], [52] is the full sequence of events.
• Patchouli has explicitly stated his POV goal here [53] when justifying his edits to another user. The Behnam 03:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• A POV re-introduction without any regard for the discussion on talk page [54]. The Behnam 03:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Another POV gem [55], with edit warring [56], [57], [58]. The Behnam 06:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• A 'Patchoulic' article [59], combining some editorials with OR to make negative assertions about those demonstrations. Perhaps a workable article, but Patchouli's style does not involve neutral writing and presentation. The Behnam 20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Added a link to a strongly anti-Islam website [60], on the Religion of Peace article, which talks about the use of "religion of peace" to describe Islam. Adding a link to a very biased website in the article body, as its own section, is very POV. Afterwards added an external link in addition [61], so nothing was even slightly improved. I can't help but consider the possibility that it is misleading to say "Official Website of Religion of Peace" in the article where Islam is being discussed as a "religion of peace." In any case, the entire addition of that website to the mix was rather POV. The Behnam 10:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Further POV & OR together [62]... in general, Patchouli's edits at Mutaween page [63]. The Behnam 10:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• I edited a page authored by Patchouli to remove POV [64]. He soon reverted it, no reason given [65]. The Behnam 02:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Patchouli is a very interesting person: His edits does hit one's raw nerves! I used to improve his edits on Iran related topics, but he has accused me of being a spy:

• "Agents of the Islamic Republic need to stop. Despite your salary, the campaign to disseminate falsehood is tough"[66]
• And even on mediation pages that I wasn't participating in, he has somehow managed to get me involved as an example of an Iranian agent:

"Employees of the Islamic Republic who edit Wikipedia in their spare time have been dithering & can't decide on censoring Wikipedia."[67]

But on the plus side, his edits has helped me to campaign for filtering Wikipedia in Iran :-) --Gerash77 03:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If more than one editor has tried to resolve the dispute, you have the makings of an RfC here. Jkelly 03:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the need for an RFC here. This is a consistent pattern of disruption and POV-pushing on Patchouli's part; I think administrative action should be taken against Patchouli so that we don't have to constantly hunt down and remove POV OR additions from what is a very large number of articles. The Behnam 06:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am also one of the editors that has had to deal with Patchouli's sneaky POV pushing attempts. This is definitely a pattern of behaviour that he has on all articles related to the middle east. I am asking for your help to put a stop to User:Patchouli's abuses and his sabotage of wikipedia middle-east related articles. Please take the time to read the following links for information about his history of misconduct. I now feel that there's no reasonable chance to reach a resolution with him and therefore I'm seeking to present his case at the ArbCom or an RfC for user conduct. Please see User_talk:LittleDan#POV_pushing - Talk:Mohammad_Khatami#Patchouli_edits - User_talk:LittleDan#hello - User_talk:Alex9891#Khatami's reform protection Barnetj 17:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've already written about Patchouli many times before, and I don't want to repeat myself. He is not a good contributor and, in my opinion, should be banned. LittleDan^talk 19:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I get frustrated whenever I see AN/I reports like this. One side, Patchouli, is vehemently ANTI-Iran, but then I see the other side, or a faction thereof, like Gerash77, who seems to have a long history of agitating against WIkipedia and actioning for it's censorship in Iran. I wind up feeling like if we deal with only the one issue brought to AN/I, but ignore the revealed OTHER problems, we're really not much better off, and possibly worse off. Can we address Gerash77's actions against what he calls a 'patchopedia', and brags of helping to censor it on his User Talk? [68] ThuranX 03:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe at a different ANI. This particular ANI is about Patchouli's POV & OR editing, as well as unwillingness to compromise with a number of different editors. I don't think these different editors comprise some sort of anti-WP "faction;" the whole reason that Agha Nader started this and others, including myself, contributed is because Patchouli's disruptive edits are hindering the project. So I think it is unfair to characterize all of us as an anti-WP group just because one member of this group claims he convinced the IRI to filter WP. Anyway, this ANI hasn't really gone anywhere significant, and we are thinking about moving to an RFC or ArbCom. Most of the people who have had these unpleasant experiences with Patchouli consider ArbCom the best choice, including editors who haven't posted here (saving for ArbCom), so I intend to apply for ArbCom once I finally figure out the confusing process. The Behnam 08:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't just Iranian who protest against "Patchouli". For example LittleDan neither Iranian nor Muslim. He's an admin of wikipedia. Please look at his comment on Patchouli's talk page few months ago:[69]

"Hi there. Some people have told me that you've repeatedly violated the rules of NPOV in a number of articles that you have edited and created. I just want to tell you as clearly as I can that no article in Wikipedia is meant to convey a particular message or opinion, only the truth which has been agreed-upon by basically everyone. When you write an article that criticizes or advocates something or someone, this must be balanced by an opposing viewpoint in the same article. One user wrote on my talk page that you have created issues with the following articles:

*Mohammad Khatami's reforms (POV fork to bash a living person, just look at the introduction and how biased it's worded)

*Mohammad Khatami ( Please see the evidence of some of Patchouli's abuses at Talk:Mohammad_Khatami#Patchouli_edits, it includes links and refernces to his personal attacks on other users' talk pages calling them agents of foreign governments etc)

*Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists (adding Mullahcracy which is political epithet, jargon and neologism, as an alternative to the title of the article by citing political editorials! Also see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mullahcracy)

*Association for Defense of Azerbaijani Political Prisoners (POV fork)

*Khomeini's Islamic leadership (POV fork)

*Government-organized demonstration (POV fork)

If you continue to do things like this, I'll be forced to block you. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not an editorial page, and when you do this, it just makes more work for other editors who have to delete your articles and revert your changes. If you keep doing this, I'll have to block you from Wikipedia or bring this case to the arbitration commit. Another important thing is, Don't delete posts from your talk page. You should let others see what people have previously written to you, even if it isn't always positive. LittleDan^talk 17:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Upon reviewing Wikipedia policy, this should actually be refered to the Arbitration committee. I will do that now. LittleDan^talk 17:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)"

--Sa.vakilian 18:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well just have to say one thing about this user that he keep changing OBL lead with The Honored Sheikh Osama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Laden[70], I do not think majority called him The Honored Sheikh and it should have any place in the lead of the article but changing it back again and again is not understandable to me. --- ALM 19:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.--Sa.vakilian 19:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community ban proposed, please give your opinion below

Adding new header to turn this thread into a proposal for a community ban. Note that LittleDan has already posted above that he supports a ban. Please give your opinion below if you haven't already. Bishonen | talk 00:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Oh, good grief. "POV-pushing" is surely too weak a term here, and the user has been around long enough to get a clue about encyclopedic editing if he's ever going to. I suggest there's no need to bother the arbcom. How about a ban for exhausting the community's patience? I know mine got exhausted just from reading the above, especially LittleDan's comments. Bishonen | talk 04:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, we are aiming for a ban. If this can be done without having to go through ArbCom & all of its formalities, that is better. I think this ANI lays it all out very well, and this isn't even all of it. The more I look, the more I find. It is completely disruptive, and I'm tired of finding bad edits, undo/correct them, and then fight his successive blind reverts and attitude. The Behnam 05:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

See my response to Sa.vakilian on my page.[71] Briefly, a community ban doesn't involve the ArbCom, it's performed by the community. It should be proposed right here, preferably in a new thread. See WP:BAN:

"There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked. Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is widespread community support for the block, and should note the block on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as part of the review process.... Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users."

This sounds to me like a case for a ban like that. But if there doesn't turn out to be consensus that the user has exhausted the community's patience, I suggest you ask somebody previously uninvolved to make a good-faith effort to reach out to him and make him change his approach to editing. If that fails, go directly to arbitration. From the links and quotes already posted, I don't see the sense in wearing out everybody with a formal mediation process and/or an WP:RFC which would only turn into a flameout anyway. Requesting arbitration isn't in itself difficult or formalistic. It's the RFC's and the more or less "official" mediation venues that are the big time-sinks. Bishonen | talk 13:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

User:Mikakasumov made a good-faith effort to reach out to him and make him change his approach to editing on July 2006: [72]

then User:LittleDan on October 27 then User:The Behnam did so on February 8 2007[73], and then User:Grcampbell on February 11 [74]. ::Certainly all of them haven't affected him. I can list some of his violations against WP policies[75] and guidelines and because of being fair I told him to defend himself. --Sa.vakilian 13:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian... no. Those aren't efforts to reach out :-( Vandalism warning templates, and fair-use image upload templates are not dispute resolution, they're the exact opposite. Please ask an experienced user to do the reaching out thing, because the examples you give are the wrong kind. Of course they didn't have a good effect on him, warning templates never do have a good effect. The only posts anything like good faith dispute resolution are LittleDan's, which are in human language and a more conciliatory tone. (Though since they double as block warnings, they're not exactly mediation attempts, either.) Also, did you read my response to you on my page, for instance about not listing policies ? Bishonen | talk 22:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

I think that this by Agha Nader is a good example [76]. Patchouli's response? [77]. The Behnam 00:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And this is another example of good-faith response "Patchouli, please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and please read it carefully. I urge you to stop this incessant propagandistic behaviour. To other editors here, please do not respond to such provocations. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to debate and argue pointlessly. There are discussion forums for that. Thank you, Khodavand 13:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)"[78]--Sa.vakilian 05:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• i would agree with the sentiments expressed by Bishonen. some of the edits he's made on Mutaween are simply outrageous.[79][80][81][82][83] ITAQALLAH 14:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have mildly tangled with this editor myself and when I did I had a distinct impression that I was again dealing with a currently community banned editor: DAde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) I haven't followed this editor's behavior extensively but if this editor has continued to edit along the lines of user DAde (talk · contribs) then I too would support a community ban. (→Netscott) 15:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support community ban, per Bishonen. This user has been around long enough, is showing no interest in doing anything productive, why waste more time? If the user were acting in good faith I could see the point of it, but that is not the case SFAICT. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Community ban proposals now go to the community noticeboard. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, but 15 minutes ago they still went here, per the WP:BAN policy which you have only just edited. Does it really have to be moved, now that it's been (appropriately) started here? I agree with the policy change—I can certainly see the point of it—but this noticeboard is still where people are likely to look for such things, and the move itself halfway through would have a bad effect on this attempt. I propose that since it was started here while proposals here were still policy, it should run its course here. Bishonen | talk 00:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

• The recurring pattern is that of me adding information and certain anti-knowledge users shouting, "WE DON'T LIKE THESE EDITS. WE DISAGREE WITH THEM. LET'S CENSOR THE STUFF. LET'S GET THIS USER BANNED."--Patchouli 03:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What's your idea about making an entry in Wikipedia:Community noticeboard and redirect it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Sa.vakilian 03:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. That's yet another reason for not moving the thread at this stage: if the discussion is at CN, with a link to it here at ANI, that link will very soon be archived. Not good. Bishonen | talk 03:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Should it be linked to the Community Ban subsection or the entire case? The Behnam 03:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on all the evidence above, and my experience with this user, I have to support a community ban. One of the most outrageous edits by Patchouli I've seen is when he added at the top of the Iran article: "One nickname of Iran is Land of Mullahs." But the worst had to be a talk page entitled, "Iranians want to nuke mullahs". One user responded with the comment, "Please stop this--it's sick!" I think this user has long exhausted the community's patience. Enough is enough. Khoikhoi 05:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not had much interaction with this user but "One nickname of Iran is Land of Mullahs", "Iranians want to nuke mullahs" and insisting on using "The Honored Sheikh" for Osama bin Laden is disappointing. --Aminz 06:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Aminz here.Proabivouac 06:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have had quite a few interactions with Aminz in several places including a few days at the Mediation Cabal over a photograph. Please read the honesty article.--Patchouli 07:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Patchouli, comments like "One nickname of Iran is Land of Mullahs", "The Honored Sheikh Osama bin Laden" caught my eyes. I think they are not appropriate. --Aminz 07:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I put "Land of Mullahs" at the end of the article to not give it undue weight. Next, bin Laden is a sheikh and "the honored" is like "his eminence". The difference between bin Laden and Ali Khamenei is that bin Laden brought jihad out of the Middle East to the U.S. Also, Khamenei relies more heavily on taqiyya. However, Khamenei is still a jihadist[[84][August 19, 2005: "The Palestinian nation and the Jihadi groups of Palestine should know that negotiations did not liberate Gaza, and will never liberate anywhere.” I see a double standard when we don't call Osama bin Laden a sheikh. In fact, if it weren't for his anti-Saudi government activities, then he would be a mufti with salary given to him by the Saudi government to preach or be a judge at a sharia court. As you see, we have disagreements and ANI is not the place to argue over such points.--Patchouli 07:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Patchuli, you misunderstood. Our problem is not your different POV but your offensive manner. There are numerous wikipedians who have anti-Islamic or anti-Iranian POV but you violate wikipedia policies and guidelines. For example Agents of the Islamic Republic need to stop. Despite your salary, the campaign to disseminate falsehood is tough[85] is personal attack and against WP:ATTACK or making POV article like Khomeini's Islamic leadership is against POV forking. Apparently you violate Wikipedia:Copyright violations [86]. These are just some of your violations against wikipedia rules. --Sa.vakilian 08:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines does not encourage us to make propaganda through wikipedia talkpages as it happened here. Iranian are saying, "we don't want peace in our time." is PLAIN BULLS**T. Patchouli, you should understand that We, as a community, do not like your edits but we are very specific about what kind of edits we are talking about. Iranians want to nuke mullahs, land of Mullahs, Of course, there will be civilian deaths, but there are civilian deaths now and the rest of GARBAGE is what we don't like in wikipedia space.

I'd not go further and ask for a community ban but Patchouli should behave well according to wikipedia policies and guidelines. A probation would be a good solution. But if the community wants a ban, i'd not oppose it of course. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_democracy#POV and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-12_Religious_Democracy Farhoudk 11:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I unreservedly recommend a community ban. I have had many interactions with this user before. Patchouli is not a new comer to wikipedia, he knows the rules but breaks them nevertheless. There is no hope to change this user's behaviour. Different editors have gone to great lengths to reason with him in several different occasions, and he has never changed his behaviour, and in some cases (including myself) he has responded with personal attacks User_talk:Barnetj#Khatami. He continues adding comments such as "It is not known how a mullah can bring freedom!" referring to President Khatami [87]. He doesn't seem to get that wikipedia is not a political commentary, but an encyclopedia. Maybe if he was a journalist writing articles in some political newspaper I would even agree with many of his comments. But he just doesn't understand the purpose of an encyclopedia! So I vote for a ban. Barnetj 11:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Olala! Olala! I thought the behaviour wasn't systematic. A blatant POV on article space?! It can't be more explicit than that. This is too much. ...and it is not known how a mullah can bring freedom... is an equivalent of ...and it is not known how Patchouli can bring NPOV to wikipedia.... A community ban! Enough is enough. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Agree with the ban. He has continuously called many, including myself a spy and a government agent, and hasn't stopped. This has resulted in many contributors either leaving Wikipedia, or in my case, getting impatience and emailing Telecommunication Companies to block this site, to save myself from further defamation. His behavior has resulted in negative emotions and actions which has resulted in edit wars and mutual accusations. He continually assumes bad faith, and accuses others of sockpuppetry, in some cases like the one you see, simply because "they disappeared at the same time"!--Gerash77 12:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

has he gone through the formal process? (WP:RFAR or WP:RFC)? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 12:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I left this user a message regarding this. I don't think a hard ban would be any help, as this user would just keep creating more accounts. The best course of action is to issue a one-month block or leave the desicion to the Arbcom, who can place him on probation. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 12:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

When I thrash out issues on a talk page, I get accused of prejudice. I read reports of Azar Nafisi & Homa Darabi in Iran and ex-patriates like Mother brings self-immolated daughter's body home & World Watch, then I say to myself,"Hey Islamofascism is alive and well." Foreign journalists say,"people we want to interview are scared." I am indebted forever and hope to be able to contribute to a healthy mullah-free Iran in the near future. is just my opinion? Why do I need to self-censor myself on talk pages? Why was "Khatami relaxed freedom of speech laws giving democracy reformers a false sense of security only to engage in one of the largest crackdowns in the country’s history...[W]e will never make progress in the region if we deal with wolves in sheep’s clothing.ROMNEY DENOUNCES KHATAMI VISIT TO HARVARD The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 5 September 2006 from Mohammad Khatami's reforms?--Patchouli 13:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do I need to self-censor myself on talk pages? Ummmm! Bear in mind Patchouli that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I think you may be confusing opinions with facts and that you fail to understand that. That's why i first suggested a probation period instead of a ban. However, i changed my mind after realizing that it is rather systematic and the proof is that you still defend your unproven theories. Do you realize that you are acting against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If yes than, IMHO, you'd still have a chance to correct things. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

He might use another IP if he banned but it's not good reason to leave punishment. Your suggestion resuls in leaving anybody to do what thaey want because our reaction may not work. Furthermor we reinforce wikipedia policies by banning such user.--Sa.vakilian 13:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Mitt Rejects Iranian Ex-Pres--Patchouli 13:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  I think we should explore steering Patchouli in the right direction. If we ban right now then chances are Patchouli will resort to creating more accounts to evade this. I strongly suggest we try talking this user out of his recent behaviour. Someone a little talk goes a long way. If that doesn't work, a dispute resolution could be a viable solution. Checking his block log, he was only blocked twice. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 13:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what you could have edited instead of any other nonsense:

On September 5, 2006 and following former Iranian President Khatami's visit to Massachusetts, Mitt Romney requested from all Massachusetts state government agencies to refuse hosting Khatami and criticized Harvard University for honouring him.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.romneyreport.com/archives/2006/09/mitt_rejects_ir.html |title=Mitt Rejects Iranian Ex-Pres |accessdate=2007-02-20 |format=html |work=romneyreport.com }}</ref> I hope you get the point. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree with everyone here who wishes to ban Patchouli, so I shouldn't bother repeating them. Patchouli has continued to write articles with a biased point of view, despite repeated admonishments. However, I think it's OK to put whatever comments you'd like on your talk page. Additionaly, Patchouli has made a few useful edits, so perhaps we should ban him for only a limited amount of time (say, 3 months) to send a clear message that Patchouli should not be making biased edits, that he is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy, but that he is not being censored. If he continues, then he should be banned permanently. This is not an issue of the religion or national origin of people bringing up this case; it is an issue one Wikipedian introducing his own political views to Wikipedia, which is plainly against Wikipedia policy. LittleDan^talk 17:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Upon reviewing Wikipedia policy, I have decided to ban Patchouli indefinitely, as there is an extremely strong community consensus to do so. LittleDan^talk 18:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Patchouli hasn't shouted at me but he's attacked the other wikipedians. If he apologized them because of his impolite manner and violation of wikipedia rules, then we could forgive him. But I don't see any proof which shows he's changed his manner. Unfortunately he's continued it in this page too. The guy who is behinde this name and IP can come back to wikipedia with another IP and username if he changes his manner but he should understand community of wikipedians can't bear violation of the rules.--Sa.vakilian 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people shout and are forgiven. The main problem is the disruptive editing habits. There was nothing indicating that Patchouli planned on changing; he seemed proud of his disruption. It is best that he remain banned. The Behnam 02:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I support LittleDan's decision and I'm confident that this was the right thing to do. Barnetj 06:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

I infer that several of the above users are sockpuppets. Why?

• At Talk:Ali Khamenei, several users like Hessam, Nareklm, Gerash77 who were debating me suddenly disappeared. Subsequently, User:Agha Nader & User:The Behnam emerged to insist on illogic.
• User:Arkeides, User:Fooladin, User:Monfared were created during my discussion with User:Barnetj at Talk:Mohammad Khatami's reforms.
• User:Khoikhoi is currently on Wikipedia:Probation for teaming up with pro-Islamic Republic users to bully others.--Patchouli 06:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Errrr...I suggest you read the List of users formerly on probation. Khoikhoi 08:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I know Hessam. He's an admin in Persian wikipedia. He has been active there since 2004. I'll want all of them to defend themseleves.--Sa.vakilian 08:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Also I don't understand why you mentioned Hessam, Nareklm, User:Arkeides, User:Fooladin and User:Monfared while non of them have participated in this discussion. It appears that you try to blame other wikipedians instead of answering our criticisms. --Sa.vakilian 10:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Uhh ya, i only reverted once in the whole article go do w/e because im not related to any of them. Artaxiad 08:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. This sort of flagrant assumption of bad faith, an unreasonable accusation that all your critics are sockpuppets (including one admin, and most of the rest are established users) with absolutely no research or evidence whatsoever, when your own poor behavior is at issue, in order to avoid addressing serious criticism, tends to speak towards your incorrigibility and the necessity of a ban, not the opposite. A community ban isn't something that happens when you hit a magic number of blocks, it's what happens when the community, through experience, comes to the conclusion that it can no longer tolerate your behavior. If you make that blatantly clear to us of your own accord, it will happen all the quicker. Dmcdevit·t 09:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, Patchouli, when you find yourself in hole, it's usually not a good idea to keep digging. Beit Or 13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I just read this. Didn't want to leave it unanswered. Apparently Patchouli was claiming that User:Arkeides, User:Fooladin and User:Monfared are sockpoppets created by me!! LOL. By all means, I welcome an investigation into this accusation. I'm sorry that Patchouli is so paranoid. Barnetj 11:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indef block of NuclearUmpf/Zerofaults

I've just extended NuclearUmpf/Zer0fault's existing block to indefinite following this edit in which he promises to create an account to "harass the gang of fags" (presumably editors with which he has had conflict). Just a heads up in case anyone would like to review the situation and advise differently. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. With his self-inflicted shot I don't see any reason to take this up to ArbComm now. --StuffOfInterest 17:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Incidentally, Guy's earlier block was indefinite. -- Steel 17:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Whoops! Ah well, I suppose 2*indef works out about the same in the end. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I actually like how your second block provides a link to exactly what got him blocked. --StuffOfInterest 18:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• An indefinite block seems like the only option. He's been a net negative to the project for quite some time. ChazBeckett 17:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Sigh. Endorse reluctantly. As Chaz says, net negative. :/ – Chacor 17:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. He has made similar comments several times in the past, and has allowed himself to be talked back from the brink. He needs to cool down and realize that even if some of the past reports against him were poorly founded, this incident was entirely self-inflicted. Before imposing a full ban, let's see if he can walk himself back again, or see if he wants to file a full new arbitration case to examine his charges of "scarlet lettering". Thatcher131 17:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • How does the project benefit by allowing him to edit? (These are serious questions, I'm not asking rhetorically) Are his contributions so valuable that the project would be better off continuing to endure his unacceptable behavior? How many chances should a user get before we say "Thanks, but we've had enough. Please leave now."? I just think that we often act as though every editor is so incredibly essential that we should attempt to "rehabiliate" even the most obvious disruptors. This isn't an isolated incident and dispute resolution has failed multiple times. Don't you think it's time to cut bait? ChazBeckett 17:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Replying to Thatcher, I'm cautiously in favour of allowing an unblock at some point, the only reason I blocked indef was because I didn't want to set a specific time. We need to decide what to do, and if that's refer back to ArbCom then I'm happy with that. The trolling needs to stop permanently, though. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think an indefinite block is about right, unfortunately. I sort of like Nuclear, and I would love to see him commit to editing articles rather than provoking more disputes, but to date, he has been some kind of weird troll Turing test -- I don't actually think he's a troll, but his pattern of (1) provocation, (2) "who me?", (3) calm phase, (4) repeat is sufficiently indistinguishable from trolling to make his presense counterproductive unless he finds a way to chill, IMHO. TheronJ 17:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• On the fence. As involved party, my opinion is worthless, but all I wanted him to do was adjust his comment so it wasn't so quasi-harassing. His last comment indicated to me he knows he has been disruptive and there does come a point that AGF is futile.--MONGO 17:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• NuclearUmpf's behavior last Thursday, in regards to the Larry Silverstein article was entirely rude, lacked good faith, and seems typical of this users tendentious behavior. The day before, he left me a talk page message, requesting clarification as to why I reverted his edits. [88] When I came on Wikipedia again, I replied, saying that I will answer on the article talk page. [89] And, I answer on the article talk page. [90] Nuclear then replies, "Please stop following my edits. Thank you." [91] There were a couple more exchanges [92] [93] and then I just dropped it because I generally ignore rudeness and find such exchanges entirely counter-productive. Anyway, I have been editing the article in question for over a year, and perhaps more than anyone else. Nuclear's first edit to the page was two days prior. So, who was following who? From this interaction and others with Nuclear, I find him counterproductive to our goals. This latest incident is the final straw. It's unlikely that Nuclear will change his ways. --Aude (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• I support the block. He is no longer interested in writing an encyclopedia. NuclearUmpf has long since done little but spew invective, demand everyone assume good faith, and waste people's time. I have no desire to wade through six weeks of who-hit-john arbitration. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Despite the good intentions of many users who tried to work with him in good faith, Zer0 has continued to engage in this abusive conduct for a long time with unrepentant and unflagging zeal. Observations about how he has done this in the past and 'allowed himself to be talked back from the brink' should show just how long the abuses by this user have been tolerated to the direct detriment of WP. The unwillingness to abide by his ArbCom probation, numerous personal attacks (homophobic and otherwise), disclosures of users' personal information, tendentious editing, sockpuppetry and cabal accusations Zer0 has leveled against other users are unacceptable and admins are the ones we trust to act in order to stop such conduct and protect the good faith of the community. As it is, we'll be having to stay on the lookout for anons or new socks that he creates to conduct the 'harassment' he promised. Enough, already. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• I always support an indef block whenever a user commits h/self to provoke and harass many users. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• On the fence. No reason to put up with it anymore, but on the other hand it's better to know who he is rather than new editor. --Tbeatty 17:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• That is very much too bad. :-( --BenBurch 18:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• support, with regret. Wow, lots of opinions. ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• The indef block looks like a good idea, especially considering the harassment promise made in that last edit. The slur is totally unnecessary. IF he can prove that he'll play well with others and be a positive contributor in the future, perhaps it could be reconsidered. We'll see, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Just so. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support, with some regret. I would have thought it would have been sufficient for him to be banned from Iraq and 9/11-related articles, templates, and categories only, allowing him to post on talk pages, but on indefinite NPA and POINT parole. (9/11-related being defined as articles which either we or he thinks are 9/11-related.)

  (In any case, we need to protect his user pages showing that he's blocked, as he'll probably edit them using his sock puppets, otherwise.

  It should also be noted that he has filed harrassment claims against me, and I'd started to put together a mediation request, negotiating as to the locus of dispute. Is there any point to going forward on that, as even an indef blocked user has some rights to "prosecute" former harassment complaints. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Reluctantly support. Threats of disruption have to be taken seriously. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose – …just to note that a lot of folks who shared their opinions could as easily be questioned about their edits (reverts), their manners and their civility. From my perspective this indefinite block will do no good. The fact is, Nuclear was under to much pressure, he was cornered (by the very people who advocate his forced retirement) and it's only natural that he decided to bite back. Constant threats about (poorly founded?) former charges? As far as I can recall three "coordinated attacks" in last month? Not sure what to say, but poor language is usually caused by poor language, raising one voice will raise another and so on… Double standards? Most certainly. Lovelight 02:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Since Mongo got nothing but the ticket for his escapade, I'd suggest another amnesty. Unblock the Nuke (immediately) and try to reconsider the very basis on which we evaluate actions of our fellow editors. Lovelight 03:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Given that he's already said (in his last post before getting blocked) he would create two new accounts, I would imagine the fag-harrassing account will be blocked fairly quickly, and if he wants to edit constructively with the other one, I certainly wouldn't bother lifting the block on the NuclearUmpf/Zer0fault account(s). Proto ► 10:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffpw

My contributions to wikipedia aside, I feel that I have been deliberately targeted for wikiredress by the wikiuser Jeffpw. This user has raised a valid wikipoint, and that is that I have canvassed in a manner contrary to wikipedia rules. I have accepted that. However, the user's postings have digressed into wikibullying. What is more, the user accuses me of 'unwiki' behaviour when he himself is guilty of (I apologise for my lack of ability in iconising these links): insulting another user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coelacan&diff=prev&oldid=109679416; used inappropriate language whilst delighting in having another user banned, ergo, banned his sorry ass<sp> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeffpw&diff=prev&oldid=109437708; and has used a word that I absolutely would not use here: 12:34, 10 February 2007 (hist) (diff) User:Jeffpw (→My Biography In Userboxspeak - bah humbug--I'm turning into a fucking Puritan). If complaints are to be made against me for my impassioned defence of the LGBT community, I'd rather that they weren't connected to one that is not only guilty of the same things that he levels against others, but delights in the banning of others. To a degree, wikipedia is something that we can switch off and go about our lives without any bother as this is a virtual community, but come on! Ganging-up to go with the flow when attacking another is just not cricket, and I don't deserve it. Thus, I call into question Jeffpw's motives with regards to others on this forum. Enzedbrit 06:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I wikilike how you wikimanaged to wikiadd wiki"wiki" wiki-into wikieverywikithing. Wiki. JuJube 06:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you. I'm not good with conflict, and here am able to introduce a touch of wikihumour.Enzedbrit 06:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiWord to your wikimotha, JuJube. I 'wikipothesize' that this is a wikivenge move regarding the section above Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Enzedbrit about enzenbrit's actions about a category inclusion. Ok, now if we can drop this, everythign can be wikismurfy. thanks. ThuranX 06:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT: - I have worked with User:Jeffpw in the past on other types of contentious matters, cautioned him to utilize cited sources whenever possible to back up information - and found the interactions to be polite and professional. Smee 06:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

What are you proposing be done? I certainly don't see any blockable offenses or anything requiring administrator intervention in those two diffs. Part Deux 11:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Very quickly, before I scoot out the door: The first diff is a silly message to a friend which mentions no nmaes. If Enzedbrit thinks it refers to him, I can only answer, "If the shoe fits...". The second diff was my expression of pleasure that a troll who has been exasperating the community and threatening legal action against regular editors and administrators alike was banned. I stand by my comment. The last edit Enzedbrit references was my edit summary when I switched from a "smoker" userbox to a "non-smoker" userbox. My last vice being gone, I am now a f*****g Puritan. Wikipedia is not censored for language. However, if my use of a common vulgarism offended Enzedbrit, I am more than willing to apologize to re-establish community harmony. Now I am off to the movies. Have a nice day (or not, if you don't feel like it. Who am I to tell you what to do?). Jeffpw 11:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have also worked with Jeffpw in the past and can see nothing above that indicates he is anything but a solid editor. Sorry Enzedbrit, lets all wikichill (if there is such a thing) and move on.Pedro |  Talk  12:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carpet9

Carpet9 is a sockpuppet of ForestH2, a frequent sockpuppeteer. I blocked him, which may be construed as a conflict of interest (I don't consider myself in a conflict with him so much as that I'm the main admin involved in blocking him). While I've known that Carpet9 was a sockpuppet, I let him know that I would not worry about blocking him as long as he continued to edit in good faith. Recently, he's chosen to bother me, and I've therefore blocked him indefinitely. He does not dispute this block.

He does, however, dispute my December blocks of other accounts that I have tied to him (SpongeBobBoy, Reeler, Shipready, MacintoshApple, Iswatch19), accounts which he denies are his. My original blocks were not made because he admitted this to me (although I would not have noticed the accounts without him). In looking at the accounts' editing, there was a clear pattern between them all (a few were created and "retired" on the same day, a few had other indicators such as immediately creating bot accounts, another thing ForestH2 does occasionally). It's also worth noting that he claims to be Squirepants101 (diff), something that has since been refuted by CheckUser. I stand by all of my blocks; however, I appreciate discussion on these actions. Ral315 » 07:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• He's already shown to control several sockpuppets and lying about controlling another account. I think you were actually a bit too reasonable when you said you wouldn't bother blocking a known sockpuppet. If he decides to bother you (I'd like to see some evidence of that to be sure) despite your huge assumption of good faith, he's outstayed his welcome. (Yeah, I know. Too lazy to sign in) - 131.211.210.20 10:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV

Could an administrator please take a look at WP:AIV now? Some reports have stayed there for an hour... PeaceNT 11:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Khoikhoi 12:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. PeaceNT 12:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request block for 84.81.129.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This anon has been repeatedly adding a section (often with very incorrect information) to many digimon articles. He's being reverted by many editors who regularly edit the Digimon articles, and has been left talk page notes by myself and one other editor explaining why his edits have been reverted, and asking him to please stop.

One example of an article is the Patamon article (article history). The same thing has been occuring on dozens of other digimon articles (check his contribution history).

It's been going on for about four days and i don't think i'm the only one who's getting sick of reverting these edits. It doesn't seem like he's planning to stop any time soon, so can someone block this address for a day or two. Hopefully, that'll suceed in getting the message through that he really should stop making those edits. --`/aksha 12:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enzedbrit

Enzedbrit (talk · contribs) seems to have taken personal exception to the category of "LGBT organisations" that has been added to NAMBLA. In the course of the debate, he has become increasingly abusive and legalistic, making insults (such as calling for all "decent LGBT" to agree with him), and then pedantically claiming they mean something different. The debate can be found on the talk page, and his talkpage. He has actually, and I confess even I, as laid back as I usually am, was shocked by this, accused (an editor) of sleeping with children. A warning/block may be in order as three users have now tried to engage with him, including someone who agrees with his position, and he has attacked them all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

His POV has sort of slipped into zealotry. I and several others have tried to reason with him, and...well, the above diff that Dev provided sort of says it all. Forgot to add that he doesn't seem to understand most policies here, including canvassing. Here's a list of editors he canvassed to influence the discussion at NAMBLA: [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100] When told canvassing was inappropriate, he said he planned to do it again. Jeffpw 23:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• This is from a user who is vexatious and patronising. I quote from the WP:LGBT page Here we go again. NAMBLA (North American Men Boy Love Association) is most definitely covered by the LGBT project. Your diatribe against this organization is clearly POV, and has no place on Wikipedia. I charge Jeffpw with the same accusations that he is laying against me Enzedbrit 02:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The particulars here are that this categorization is grossly offensive to everyone else in the generalized category of LGBT, and he's grossly offended. He needs to be civil about it, but ... this is ridiculous. The only people who lump them all together are anti-gay hate groups trying to make mainstream gays look bad. I'm removing the category. Georgewilliamherbert 01:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't do that, George, not while discussion is ongoing on the talk page. The fact is members at the LGBT Project are split on this issue, and we should probably be the ones who make the decision whether it is included or not. Jeffpw 01:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, too late, but for the sake of argument (and to deter reverts) - psychologists researching pedophillia report it to be a third form of sexual attraction, distinct from hetero or homosexuality. Most pedophiles aren't gay, and only a tiny minority of gays are pedophiles, apparently proportionately less than in the general population. Most gays, all the ones I know, and everyone else across the LGBT spectrum, find connecting them with NAMBLA to be akin to hate speech. And I tend to agree. It's roughly equivalent to calling "Hitler", with the general populace.

The arguments on the talk page are not persuasive.

I certainly may end up being wrong on this, but your definition of the category is at odds with standard usage, and offensive to a lot of people, and I think there's a very good reason not to use it there. Georgewilliamherbert 01:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Of the five members of WP:LGBT who have expressed an opinion on the category so far, three have said it should stay and two otherwise. Thus "The only people who lump them all together are anti-gay hate groups" is not true, and that is in fact the (false) idea that Enzedbrit is pushing. I mean, I really, really understand his concerns, but the fact that the LGBT community have (rightly) utterly disowned NAMBLA doesn't make it any less LGBT. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

• It does actually. As has been pointed out by others on wikipedia, sex between men and boys does not mean that the man has to be a homosexual. This is something beyond heterosexuality and homosexuality. I am being attacked as having a strong POV, yet what people don't realise, because I am a faceless username on a planet of 6.5 billion, is that I have been actively involved in my community for many years and the activity of sex between adults and minors does not automatically fall into a determined sexuality. Rather than POV, that is accepted commonsense.Enzedbrit 02:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please consider the sensitivity and care with which Jews for Jesus is handled relative to Judiasm as a whole. Wikipedia categories are not merely library catalog designations.

Pedophillia really is a third form of sexual attraction. It's got gay or bi. It's a hotbutton nametag. Georgewilliamherbert 01:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

George, I agree. Can we keep the content-part of this discussion over to Talk:NAMBLA (I see you've already weighed in there)? That way this dicussion can focus simply on the behavior of Enzedbrit. — coelacan talk — 01:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think one of the problem has been the fact that editors involved in this dispute may be too involved, either as members of the LGBT Wikiproject and/or as LGBT people, with issues surrounding the dispute. I suggested forms of dispute resolution to Enzedbrit when I expressed a view that his cross-posting to talkpages could be seen as votestacking. I now think it would be helpful if an RfC be made about the categorisation of the article so that cooler heads may have a look at this issue, an intend to request such and RfC presently. WjBscribe 01:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A second, and probably bigger, problem I see, in reviewing the relevant talk section, is this edit: [101] in which Enzedbrit uses 'Guilt By Association' to suggest that anyone who says it belongs in the category is either a pedophile or a pederast, or maybe just gay. No matter what he meant specifically, it's a clear challenge that anyone supporting category inclusion is horrific, thus dissuading others from supporting it's inclusion. I'd go voice support for inclusion, based on the 'historical perspectives' and 'criticisms of LGBT' arguments raised on the talk page, but I guess the WP's got it covered, for better or worse. ThuranX 01:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be useful if an uninvolved party spoke to Enzedbrit as so far comments about his conduct have all come from users involved in the dispute with him (myself included). My aim in the WP:RFC/SOC is to try and gain consensus to resolve the underlying dispute which has clearly become rather inflammatory. WjBscribe 01:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't I go do that... Georgewilliamherbert 01:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am responding my defence here. I have not been abusive at all and anyone that has followed my edits cannot claim in good faith that I have been. I have called upon 'decent LGBT folk' and have explained now several times, including on my talk page, what this meant. I have countered someone's assertion that my health is in question by edits to a group that openly advocates sex with children, with a comment that is fitting, and that is that I'm not the one sleeping with children. Again, this was not aimed at the contributor and this has been explained. Therefore, the grounds for me being listed here are baseless and I demand the removal of my good name from this page. Enzedbrit 02:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

...And I think my comments were just verified. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate as to how? Enzedbrit 05:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I note that you are the LGBT coordinator. How strange. So, may I look at one point of your original posting? When confronted with two sides of an argument - that I have said someone has slept with children, or that I have said that I am not the one sleeping with children - you could take the view of the offended - that I said he sleeps with children - or the accused offender - that my mental state is in question and I retort with a comment directly applicable to the article that has caused all this mess - you still go with the view of the offended, overriding my explanation, and use it as a base comment for my being here. Why would the LGBT coordinator do this? Enzedbrit 05:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Enzedbrit, responding with "I'm not the one sleeping with children" is, indeed, an attack against the person you replied to, and thus a violation of WP:NPA. No, you did not explicitly accuse the person you were responding to, but you have a good enough command of English to know what implication is. Your comment implies that the person you are responding to does, indeed, sleep with children--and I'm of the opinion that you are already quite aware of that. Justin Eiler 05:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your indignant posture aside, you still don't seem to understand that your wording is a distinct 'challenge' at best, and Guilt by association in a worse light, and at the worst, an outright accusation, that anyone who can find any factual or contextual basis for the inclusion is by extensino also a pedophile. I'd wager that in fact you're fully aware of the meaning of yoru words, and hope to argue from a position of apparent moral superiority. Unfortunately, WP:NOT=High School Debate Club. Ad Hominem attacks and arguments from any sort of position of authority aren't relevant. The talk page makes some rather convincing points to me, and I'm an outsider to the entire issue. I'd rather be discussing Rush's latest album, upcoming movies about comic books, or 20th century art. However, I watch AN/I among many other pages, and more and more, I'm enjoying adding to the discussions here. Simply put, the arguments made that by association, critical and otherwise, that organization is tied to LGBT issues. Further, longstanding ideas about the sexuality of members, extant their agenda overlaps, warrants inclusion. I could keep going, but interested editors and admins can find it all on the talk page. To attack numerous Wikipedia editors, all acting in Good faith to help debate and find consensus on such an obviously difficult issue, is Pure Bad Faith. It's dishonest, disingenuous, and needs to stop. You do no one involved in this a service by your games. It's far better to read the issue through, and construct good points. If you're only going by gut emotion, at least more quietly support one side or another, as your feelings may be. But to vehemently defend your side while insulting all editors who come to help is poor manners, to say the least. It is that behavior we're discussing here on AN/I, not the categorization, which is being dealt with at the talk page and the project page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThuranX (talk • contribs)

Although I accept that so many people now think that I indeed have accused the user of sleeping with children, I hold to it that this is not my intention, and I stand by my redress of this. I also protest that I have attacked and/or insulted all those who have acted in good faith and do not see this as a justified assertion. I am well aware that this alleged behaviour is the topic of discussion, and the most aggrieving aspect of this is the seeming inability of those in contrast to me/my opinion to view those of the 'offended' in the same light by which I am being judged. This is wikifrustrating. Enzedbrit 06:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, if you did not mean to make that implication, then I profoundly apologize for assuming bad faith.

Enzed, the fundamental issue here is one of association, no matter how distasteful. Whether we approve or disapprove, the ideas behind NAMBLA came out of the post-Stonewall radical gay rights movement. I know that today almost no gay rights associations will have anything but repugnance for NAMBLA, but to have a complete, accurate, and truly NPOV assessment of LGBT issues, we cannot turn our backs on those issues that are no longer accepted. Justin Eiler 12:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

*shrug* It really only seems to backfire when the LGBT community protests about this. I agree with User:Justin Eiler on this. The inclusion should be referenced as controversial, but as a notable wikiuser who happens to be LGBT, I should emphasize that LGBT expands into LGBTQQ, an umbrella that incorporates a broader strata of sexuality. Even reprehensible, distasteful sexuality.

Let's not POV-push and call it a quest for accuracy, huh?

—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-22 00:43Z

[edit] On-going and Long-term Harassment

Some months ago I removed an editors off-topic comment from the Talk:James Kim page. I often do that as talk pages are not supposed to be used for general discussion of a subject, let alone making attacks against the subject. Since that time the editor through an IP has harassed me endlessly. Jake b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Some of the back and forth is available on his talk page (he keeps blanking it) and the admins previously involved. its continued through various IPs until now where he's admitted it and the connection is obvious. Here is the edit where he admits to having a user name [102]. You can also see on the history of this page [103] the user whose comment was removed and the IP both editing it. His comments made it quite obvious, but this is a clear connection. You can view the IPs contrib [104], as well as my talk page and the james kim talk page for more of the harassment. Specifically this section contains most of it [105].--Crossmr 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And the harassment continues [106]. Here I get harassed for rv the IP who's been harassing me for months when he restored the harassment thread that the admin deleted.--Crossmr 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block review

User:Chris Chittleborough has recently started to contribute to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic. User:Fairness And Accuracy For All suddenly popped up on two articles he'd never edited before but Chris had, and made edits with inflammatory edit summaries. Since stalking is already a subject of the RFAR he bloody well should know better and if he had any sense whatsoever he'd keep his head down, but since he chose to put it in the noose I have blocked him for 24 hours. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC/Personal attacks

I've been under constant personal attacks recently from User:Worldtraveller ([107], [108], [109]), who is currently editing only to launch such attacks and to work on his essay of much recent note about Wikipedia's failures. Additionally, he's opened up an RfC against me, which has gone two days of spamming without certification, and I would like to see closed. Though these are clearly personal attacks, I of course would not like to simply deal with this behavior myself, and would appreciate other admins looking into this (I have thus far been unable to receive any input on the situation).

On another note, my now closed RfC is still being edited, and I've been unable to receive any comments on what to do there, either. --InShaneee 04:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Only just noticed that you define a note to one person as spamming. I think you know that's ridiculous. Worldtraveller 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

(I confine myself to the procedural questions.) The more recent RfC has remained uncertified for well more than forty-eight hours and so can be deleted straightaway by any uninvolved party (the endorsement of the statement of the dispute by an uninvolved party ≠ a certification of that which underlies the dispute inasmuch, most notably, as the former does not reflect the endorsing user's having tried to resolve the dispute). On the latter issue, an RfC, to my understanding, is generally not formally closed, such that there is not after some period erected a bar to further participation (beyond, of course, the abiding WP:CIVIL, etc.); one can safely divorce him/herself of an "old" RfC, though, I imagine, when its constructive potential appears exhausted (viz., when a consensus of editors has been borne out and contributions tend only to represent unsubstantial endorsements or restatements of expressed views). Joe 05:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• OK, we have an issue here in that several individuals express frustration with InShaneee. Much of this is sour grapes. Can any uninvolved party give some insight as to whether InShanee might need a bit of support, or if a proper RfC (as in: not a list of grudges) would be worth doing? My feeling is that InShaneee is just an admin who does hard cases sometimes, with predictable results, but I could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There actually were some good comments from uninvolved users in the last RfC, and there was some good progress made on many sides of the issue, I think. --InShaneee 01:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are personal attacks. I left a civility warning for this user just a couple days ago, I have left another. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. They're not personal attacks. "If you refuse to justify your actions, you're a terrible administrator" isn't even the same as calling Inshaneee a terrible administrator — see the "if" in there? I would object strongly to Worldtraveller being blocked or in any way intimidated over such posts. I think it's important for the healthy functioning of this site that criticism of admin actions, even strong criticism, is allowed, nay, encouraged. There is nothing personal about criticizing somebody's admin actions. If I have anything to do with it, nobody'll ever get blocked for calling me a terrible administrator, with or without the "if". Bishonen | talk 02:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

If you refuse to justify your actions, <personal attack>. Ummm, ya that is a personal attack, failing to justify yourself does not allow for personal attacks. Also, you can criticize without name calling, the personal attack in question was not needed to air his concerns. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I did not block this user, or even mention a block. It was just a polite request to be civil. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A request warning which mentioned a previous request warning. Yes. I'm afraid I found your tone threatening. Food for thought? Bishonen | talk 03:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

My thought was simply that there is a place, a time, and a tone. This happened more than a month ago, and I pretty much always consider "surprised you can string together a few sentences" to be an insult. Either way, I've now made another attempt to resolve this conflict, so hopefully this will end here. --InShaneee 05:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky personal attacks are still personal attacks. For instance, someone who says "If I were a vindictive person, I'd call you a <censored>, but I'm not vindictive so I'm not going to say that" is in essence gaming the system. Oh and by the way, I don't think we officially "close" RFCs, but adding new remarks to a page that is essentially abandoned is not a plausible form of dispute resolution. >Radiant< 10:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well put. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I find this utterly astonishing. How is 'you're a terrible administrator' a personal attack? Did you notice it was prefaced with "If you refuse to justify your administrative actions"? Worldtraveller 12:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What about "surprised you can string together a few sentences"? I completely agree with radiant that prefacing an insult with a conditional is just a way to attempt to get away with a personal attack. Besides, the behavior of others never justifies an insult, so that conditional means nothing. We are volunteers and failure to justify himself to you does not make him fair game. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Try reading what I said because it wasn't that. The statement "If you refuse to justify your administrative actions, you're a terrible administrator" is just basic common sense. To read a personal insult into it makes no sense at all. Worldtraveller 14:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read it a few times, it still looks the same. To explain further would require me to repeat myself, which I try not to do too much. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe try just one more time. You do appear to have misread it. Worldtraveller 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the core dispute here, but I disagree with the assertion that "You are a terrible administrator" is a personal attack, especially when couched in hypothetical terms. While there are of course many good admins on Wikipedia, there have been and will be some bad apples among them. Are you suggesting that if anybody (rightly) criticises the actions of a bad admin, or (rightly) calls them out for being a bad admin, they are engaging in a personal attack? It just seems like a slippery slope toward forbidding all criticism of admins, because criticism of anyone's actions constitutes a personal attack. Venicemenace 17:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Or should I say, I disagree that it's necessarily a personal attack. Venicemenace 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Guettarda

I have asked this user to stop posting on my talk page and he is refusing to comply. --Ideogram 07:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I asked Ideogram to strike a statement s/he made about me which cast me in a negative light, undeservedly. S/he replied with insults, and then with threats. All I have asked is that s/he strike the comments. I am just trying to discuss things in a polite, civil manner. I have no idea how to communicate with her/him other than via her/his talk page. Anyway, I give up. It's definitely time for bed. Guettarda 07:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

So - how does one deal with a person who would rather break the three-revert rule[110][111][112][113] (albeit on a user talk page) and use personally-directed insults[114] than have a civil, adult discussion of their behaviour? Guettarda 15:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverting your own user-page is generally held as an exception to 3RR, one that outside users do not similarly enjoy. Thereby, edit warring with a user on their talk page can indeed result in you getting blocked without any 3RR violation of the user in question. If you have a serious concern with a particular editor, a request for comment is a more appropriate avenue to pursue it. If your concern falls short of a RfC, you might consider disengagement instead of trying to force the issue on a user talk page. Really, that's pretty much a bad option because it's likely to prove unfruitful and harmful to yourself. Bitnine 16:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It isn't a matter of edit warring - I just tried to continue the conversation and was not reverting. The fact that it was her/his user talk page is the reason why it isn't an actionable violation, but it still shows contempt for policy, and far more importantly, shows utter unwillingness to attempt to resolve the issue . The user's edits appear to be well-poisoning in a dispute in which the user appears to have been acting as a "mediator"; thus, I think the comment should be struck. If I'm wrong, convince me I am wrong, don't escalate to insults and threats. With regards to disengagement - it's part of a DR filing against me, so her/his characterising me as "unwilling" to proceed (when I was unaware of the filing) isn't something from which I can disengage. An RFC requires two people who have had the same problem with the user, so it isn't an option. Filing a request for informal mediation via the medcab is a waste of time, in my experience, since almost every "mediator" I have dealt with there seems clueless about policy..not to mention the user is active in the medcab (perhaps this is part of what is endemically wrong with the medcab - "mediators" who can't discuss differences in a civil manner). I didn't raise it here, but I am interested in resolving this issue. Guettarda 16:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ideogram, I have a suggestion for you: to stop the problem, try apologising for being rude and provocative to Guettarda. Isn't that what mediators are all about? Guy (Help!) 22:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss my interaction with Guettarda. It goes without saying that I disagree with his characterization of events. --Ideogram 07:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place? So where is? You raised the issue here. My attempts to resolve this issue through discussion at your talk page were met with incivility and four reverts by you. Where else can one discuss your misbehaviour? Guettarda 07:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried again...same result[115]. Obviously the her/his comment above was false. Guettarda 07:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda does not understand that I refuse to talk to him and that I am fully within my rights to do so. If he wishes to discuss my behavior with other people he is free to file an ArbCom case and I will explain myself fully there. --Ideogram 07:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that not only is Ideogram trying to circumscribe what other editors can and cannot discuss, s/he also shows no understanding of dispute resolution. I have been trying to discuss her actions in a medcab case where s/he is acting as mediator. I don't think I have yet encountered a medcab "mediation" where the mediator understands either policy or mediation. Guettarda 07:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda is continuing to harass me on my talk page. --Ideogram 07:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Explaining policy to you does not constitute harassment. Attempting to resolve a dispute (where you are acting in an "official" capacity) does not constitute harrassment. Please see Wikipedia:Harassment. Guettarda 08:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone here is interested in my view of the matter, I have explained it here. --Ideogram 14:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What, I don't have enough drive-by nonsense on my talk page that you have to clutter it up with this? Bah. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought the fact that you chose to speak to me about this there indicated that I should respond there. If you would like me to move the discussion to another venue, say, my talk page, I will be happy to do so. --Ideogram 14:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I chose... ? I chose to respond to your message on my talk page. I didn't choose to speak to you arbitrarily. Secondly, no, no need to move a thing. That was meant to be mildly humorous, I should have put BEGIN and END humor tags around it I guess. Text is so sterile. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I intended my message on your talk page to be about taking on the medcab case and not about the dispute between Guettarda and myself. However, once you spoke of it I assumed you had taken an interest. I do know (and admire) your sense of humor, but given the volatile situation I decided to play it safe. --Ideogram 15:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nkras sock

Request that someone consider blocking this sock of banned User:Nkras:

• 63.229.199.170 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

I say consider because he is trolling me but he's doing it on Jimbo's user page so I don't know how it should all play out. But I'd like to at least get some eyes on it. — coelacan talk — 18:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by JzG. Tagged as a sockpuppet by... himself? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If only they could all be this helpful. (jarbarf) 20:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it time to consider a range block for a set period of time? Justin Eiler 03:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

31 socks in a little less than a week--and those are just the ones that have been tagged. Again is it time to consider a range block? Justin Eiler 16:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated insertion of unsubstantiated passage in Manchukuo

A user has been reverting attempts to remove this paragraph, this edit being the latest attempt. On the talk page, from Talk:Manchukuo#Revenge_king onward is arguments over the unencyclopedic and non-notable website, the only source for a movement no one else has heard of. Xiner (talk, email) 14:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please give an opinion on this? It's been going on for over two months. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 16:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User has been warned on his talk page and on the IP talk page. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ban evasion

the indef banned Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs)/Hkelkar (talk · contribs) seems to be evading his ban through IP's, resuming his reverting on the same articles he participated on previously :

• 70.113.124.33 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 70.113.94.221 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 70.113.127.40 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 70.113.116.46 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

-- ITAQALLAH 14:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide some background in more detail Itaqallah? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by User:195.194.195.11- a likely sockpuppet of banned user User:Wikiccol

This IP address has surfaced- a likely sockpuppet of banned user User:Wikiccol. Wikicool was banned on 02/02/07- "Use of a sock account to harass another user is forbidden. Ergo, you've been blocked indefinitely". This IP address has attacked the same targets. Astrotrain 15:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Astrotrain is correct and have blocked the IP for 24 hours. I've also watchlisted that image, and if he tries again via another address, I'll semi-protect it. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pacon and his/her vandalism

The user Pacon has ignored repeated messages regarding vandalism, including two final warnings and is continuing to vandalise the Roddy Collins page. In my opinion this user should be banned or blocked (never gone this far before, so apologies if using the incorrect terminology). WikiGull 17:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Please refer to Administrator intervention against vandalism for prompt actions next time. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock-block requested

Classicjupiter2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) has been using sockpuppets to disrupt the Surrealism article. An ongoing mediation (through WP:MEDCAB) was closed because of his use of sockpuppets. The page is now protected, and a case at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Classicjupiter2 has proven that Classicjupiter2 is a sockmaster, but the two latest puppets, LiquidGeology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Dublin Surrealist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) haven't been blocked. Could an admin please block them? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. --InShaneee 20:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disparaging redirect: diabeetus

Am I wrong in the view that the "diabeetus" redirect which essentially disparages Wilford Brimley should be deleted? I tagged it as nonsense but was reverted. Thanks. (→Netscott) 18:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• See the talk page. Try WP:RfD if the redirect should really be looked over as offensive.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• I speedied it some time ago as what was apparently a nonsense attack, but quickly discovered that -- at the very least -- it's not patent nonsense. I personally figure the purpose of redirects is to get people to what they're looking for as quickly as possible. But, no harm in RfD, if you like. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Personally, I think that it's a fair redirect based on the parodies, but RFD is fine too. Make sure to include diabeetis if you're going that route. Ral315 » 19:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Needing to RfD somet lame internet meme (that is essentially dead at this point anyway) that disparages the subject strikes me as odd. But ok. (→Netscott) 20:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the deletion log (and the red link above), it was deleted by JzG.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed... good call. (→Netscott) 20:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ryulong is ...

Can someone block this user (full username redacted) on the grounds that it is:

(1) Inflammatory

(2) Sounds too similar to another user

(3) May hurt Ryulong on the inside.

~Steptrip ^(talk) 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Already dealt with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User doesn't exist. Where did you get the impression the user does? 〈REDVEЯS〉 22:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The user (original name redacted from section header) is indeed listed on Special:Listusers. Any active administrator or vandal-fighter has a series of attack-named, hopefully indef-blocked usernames on that list. Presumably Steptrip was looking at the list of users newly created or something along those lines. Newyorkbrad 22:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This type of blatant WP:USERNAME violation should probably go to WP:AIV, by the way. No need for discussion. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Steptrip listed the user here as "User:Ryulong is an asshole". That user doesn't exist, but "User:Ryulong is an asshole." does. Note the position of the full stop. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This was among the more polite of such vandal names. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MONGO

I responded to a request from Thomas Basboll to what he perceived as a threatening post from MONGO with the implication of physicality involved. I agreed with the perception, and asked MONGO to withdraw the remarks and assure Thomas Basboll that he would not be subject to intimidation physically or in any other way. MONGO did not withdraw his remarks but simply launched a personal attack on me instead, implying that I had a grudge against him, which I do not. However, in the interests of observing propriety, I propose to withdraw from the dispute, and I would be grateful if another admin could attend to it. The incident is on MONGO's talk page. Thanks. Tyrenius 02:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There is some clear incivility going on there. `^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)}

Nothing to see here. Move along. The short answer is that content disputes belong on the talk page of the article. The next shortest answer appears to be that User:MONGO wants neither User:Tyrenius or User:Thomas Basboll to post on his talk page and vice versa. It seems all problems would be solved if talk page discussions between these parties were limited to article space. Going forward, that seems to be the best policy. As for the "physicality" it appears User:MONGO's position is if you are going to say "Fuck you" to him, you should say it to his face. Not sure that's any more of a threat than saying "Fuck you." I say, drop your guns and step away from brink. --Tbeatty 02:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said "Fuck you", my reading was MONGO was interpreting "Have a nice day" as "Fuck you". Quote "surely you know when you say "have a nice day" in the context of the disagreements we generally have, that is the slang way of saying, "Fuck you". ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody threatened bodily harm either. Your interpretation turned it into that in the same way that MONGO interpreted the "Have a Nice Day" as "Fuck You". I am inclined to believe that both users essentially told each other to "go to hell", but you won't find those words either. It certainly doesn't warrant a one sided block considering that the incivility was taken to MONGO's talk page and not the other way around. --Tbeatty 02:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It has gone further[116]. While this is probably a block I would not have placed, I cannot argue with it's reasoning. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(Quadruple edit conflict) (Tyrenius, I hope you'll forgive my tampering with your post to put relevant dif's throughout.) I'm familiar with the page the two are debating about but am not involved in this conflict. For those who aren't familiar with the 9/11 article and corresponding talk page, it gets pretty heated. I don't think MONGO was intending a physical threat here. MONGO's comments boil down to "you pissed me off; I feel you were rude to me; people aren't rude to me in person; don't talk to me again." While I'd advise MONGO to avoid mentioning his apparently fearsome mortal coil in the future, I'm strongly of the mind this was not a threat. Uncivil, perhaps, but no threat. JDoorjam JDiscourse 02:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've temporarily blocked this user for making a direct (although admittedly thinly veiled) threat to another user. Please see User_talk:MONGO#Blocked. Thanks gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. That's inappropriate. JDoorjam JDiscourse 02:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

An attempt to discuss the issue was greeted by a go away, I don't think this is punitive. I personally would have attempted discussion more. I see a few people trying to sweep this under the rug, I personally think admins should be held to higher standard, but that is just me. Good night, and Have a nice day!. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, rather famously, is no longer an administrator. Newyorkbrad 02:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops. My bad. Well then, take all I said and multiply it by 0.8. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, say have a nice a day to my face! :) --Tbeatty 02:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. This is way overreacting to the mild spat there. Gallimh, I'm going to contact you shortly, but I urge you to unblock. Georgewilliamherbert 02:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, just tap the man on his back, return him the keys and encourage him to speed up before next road kill… Talking about the double standards… Dear oh dear… Lovelight 03:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) The person that seems to have been forgotten in all this is Thomas Basboll, who felt sufficiently intimidated to consider leaving wikipedia if he did not have community support against being, what he perceived as, threatened in this way. I asked MONGO to withdraw the remarks. He did not do so, and so far has not done so. Perhaps someone else could advise him to, and perhaps we could give some support to Thomas Basboll. MONGO also launched a direct attack on me, which my message to him does not merit. Tyrenius 02:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

He could have come to ANI or some uninvolved third party to ask for clarification or mediation. You were a bad choice. He's seeing a threat where there's only rudeness, and that is not something he needs to leave the project for, nor something that justified the block on MONGO. If MONGO had done that on Thomas' user talk, or kept it up for a while, it would rise to the level of actionable harrassment. But this is unreasonable. Georgewilliamherbert 03:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You of course have the benefit of hindsight. Obviously MONGO is still sore about something, but it's history as far as I'm concerned, and things move on. Tyrenius 03:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Gaillimh seems to have gone offline and didn't respond to a query about the block, so I've unblocked. Tryenius, I appreciate your concern, but I think this was a misunderstanding that blew up out of nowhere, and the best thing is for everyone just to forget it and move on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a reassurance from MONGO about what he did not intend the remarks to be taken as would put an end to matters, and indeed is all that was necessary in the first instance. Tyrenius 03:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, since it's all about fire and forget, let's unblock the Nuclear too… Lovelight 03:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said on MONGO's talk page, I'm female, and I can't imagine feeling frightened as a result of MONGO's post. If people are so sensitive, then maybe they should just respect another user's wish that they discuss problems on the relevant article talk page rather than on his user talk page. I make a point of not continuing to post on people's talk pages once they make it clear that my posts are unwelcome, unless it's absolutely essential, and MONGO said he had the articles watchlisted. (By the way, was it just a coincidence, that Thomas went to ask help from someone who had been in serious dispute with MONGO?) I wish admins would give a little more consideration before they put permanent records in someone's block log — something that's far worse than the inconvenience of temporarily being unable to edit. I fully support the unblocking. This was a very trivial matter, completely overblown. Thank you, SlimVirgin. Musical Linguist 03:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I object to the innuendo of "serious dispute with MONGO". I'm not aware of having much to do with MONGO, and whatever dispute there was was very short-lived. I simply asked him to reassure Thomas Basboll that he was not intending to intimidate him, and when I realised MONGO had some lasting enmity towards me, I withdrew. I think that reassurance should be made. It still hasn't been. Tyrenius 03:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't withdraw. You made two more posts on his talk page after he had asked you not to. Musical Linguist 03:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I withdrew from dealing with him directly over this and posted as above so others could look at it. That doesn't mean I'm not going to comment. You posted about me on his talk page, so I replied. Users don't have the right to arbitrarily ban someone from their talk page. Tyrenius 04:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, I think it's now clear that there is a "serious dispute" and that you are not welcome to post on his talk page. Therefore, there is no reason to post on his talk page. --Tbeatty 04:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope I will not have a reason to post on his talk page. Tyrenius 04:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For goodness' sake. So MONGO's log now defines him for ever and a day as someone who threatens violence? Yes, admins are held to a higher standard. I'd really like to see admins take a little more thought before they smear editors in their indelible block log. Bishonen | talk 03:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi! I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I wanted to drop a line here, as well. I'm completely fine with the unblock performed by User:SlimVirgin, especially as other users and administrators voiced a desire for Mongo to be unblocked. I maintain that the comments were extremely inappropriate, and indeed threatening. Of course, the threat was empty and not frightening, but it was a threat nonetheless and something that we cannot allow or even ignore, lest things escalate, which was what my block intended to prevent. As a number of experienced and well-intentioned users seem to be watching the user talk page, I'm confident that they will act as a voice of reason should any further discussions disintegrate into silliness again. With regards to any "smearing", it wasn't my intention nor my will, however I do stand by my actions. Thanks! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 04:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How ridiculous. MONGO's comment wasn't threatening; your block was bad, and you stand by it? Were you this bad an admin before your recent fresh start, whoever you are? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

MONGO was speaking bluntly, nothing more. — MichaelLinnear 05:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, some people do experience it as threatening, and the block was endorsed by HighInBC also, so that's 3 admins at least who consider the comments sufficiently egregious to merit sanction. Perceptions differ. That doesn't mean someone with a different perception is bad. You might note that Mongo did not seek to reassure over his intent, as he was invited to do. We surely can expect at least this in order to clear up any misunderstanding. Tyrenius 05:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL. The interwebnet is chockers with feebs who cry "you wouldn't say that to my face in real life" and no one ever feels threatened. Gaillimh can think himself lucky that deadminning is so difficult. If you could lose the bit for just not having a clue, he'd be back among the grunts already. Kudos to Slim for taking the right action; brickbat for MONGO for the silly comment. BTW, should you really get the bit when you change IDs? Isn't it the ID we have trust in, rather than the person behind it? Not that it's not perfectly clear who Gaillimh is. Grace Note 05:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly...maybe it makes for an uncomfortable editing experince for Basboll, but I have told him previously to not bring content disputes to my talkpage and yet he persists and even accuses me of somehow doing something wrong for reverting his edit that he had no consensus to add...and finishes up that heated exchange with a hardly honest "Have a nice day", which is akin to saying fuck you where I am from. How anyone except someone with an axe to grind could construe my response as a real physcial threat is beyond me. I have no idea who Gaillimh is...but now my block log indicates that I made intimidation and thinly veiled threats of violence...how outrageously preposterous is this. There was no threat whatsoever.--MONGO 07:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A point of clarification might be in order. If I left Wikipedia over this it would not be because I "felt threatened" by Mongo. As other people have noted, though it was clearly some sort of gesture at the fact that I probably wouldn't be able to handle myself in his "presence", such threats are too unrealistic in this medium to be taken seriously. But my "virtual" experience with Mongo has been that of repeatedly having to stand up to a bully. In the past, we have had some success in keeping things civil on the article talk pages, precisely because we could take things our own talk pages. Mongo's outburst suggested to me (actually confirmed for me) that he is likely to interpret little "pleasantries" like "have a nice day" as direct insults. He is, of course, free to do that, and I guess I can see his point in this case. My hope, in contacting Tyrenius, was simply to straighten the matter out: to assure him that I did not mean it as an insult (just a rather terse "good bye, let's not say more about this") and to give him the opportunity to assure me that he was just doing some rhetorical posturing--drawing the line, as it were. If disputes like this can't be resolved in a civil way (note that Mongo is basically suggesting that we mutually assume bad faith in each other's edits) then I simply have better things to do. The part of me that, I think, offers some hope for a thaw here is that I can understand Mongo's reluctance to appear to back down from a fight. I feel the same way, which is why I stress that I'm not asking for protection from Mongo. I'm just not interested in "fighting" my way out of every edit I make like this. In any case, I know when I'm outnumbered. So unless Mongo does the gentlemanly thing and retract his remarks and return to a state of open, civil disagreement, or more formal authorities intervene, well, I'll just be moving on.--Thomas Basboll 07:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thomas, you and MONGO have a long-standing dispute, I recommend you to take it to mediation. I don't think this warrants any kind of sanctions against anyone, but the phrase "chill out" does spring unbidden to mind. I am unsure why people find it necessary to make hundreds of edits per day to the 9/11 articles anyway, since nothign much has changed about the events or their interpretation recently. Perhaps if everybody took a voluntary break from editing those articles? Guy (Help!) 11:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My hope is still that Mongo and I just offer those mutual assurances, acknowledge the misundertanding, and get back to a civil tone, with each other's talk pages open to deal with these occasional needs to chill. Otherwise, yes, some further step in the dispute resolution process will be necessary before I, in any case, can get back to work. The content question about the 9/11-related articles is very tricky. When I arrived on the scene last year, the articles were in fact quite outdated, and needed a lot of work on the details. Mongo agrees with this at a general level, I think, and even in the case of the article that gave rise to this incident. What he objected to was my particular approach to beginning improvements (which he believes is an extreme form of POV pushing.) Incidents like this, and their underlying causes, are no doubt much to blame for hampering the continuous improvement of the articles. So we deal with problems in the order that they must be solved. Right now, it is this.--Thomas Basboll 11:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• This stuff is a good example of where people have been wanting to go. By continually treating WP:NPA as if it said that "personal attacks" result in blocks, we have made over half the threads on AN/I about "I got insulted! I got attacked! I want him or her blocked!" If that weren't enough, we're sitting right in the middle of a pile of "could it conceivably be interpreted as hostile in any way, and, if so, can I possibly block?" So we get brush-offs as attacks, attacks as threats, and then blocks for content disputes and because someone said (past tense) a thing. Oh, happy! Troll heaven! We can bring all editing to a halt by going to AN/I, claiming to be intimidated, and then getting blocks thrown.
• Is it the fault of the new admins that they blocked, when the older admins have been encouraging this misbegotten, illogical, and inevitably crippling understanding of "help, help, I'm being repressed?" We should have been making it clear that the more prone to minority point of view edits a topic is, the slower anyone needs to be in responding to a complaint. We should have never allowed anyone, much less rising admins, to misunderstand "attack" to be "could you, would you, if you wanted to consider this possibly sort of mean," and letting people believe that "personal attack" is a reason for a block is just crazy.
• The fact is that some topics are victims of legion minority points of view edits. UFO's, Bigfeet, alien abductions, Arab/Israeli issues, 9/11, Guantanamo Bay and Camp X-ray, the moon landing, perpetual motion, the JFK assassination, all have not one minority point of view, but hundreds of minority points of view, and most are represented by some editor, sooner or later. The reason we don't allow the usual flow and ebb of an article like that to whatever the editors think is that each minority point of view alienates and irritates all the others, and these articles are non-stop war. When we have people who stand up to watch these articles, even if they're too conservative, we should be overjoyed. If they get aggravated by the editors wanting to change this way and that, you ought to think, at least temporarily, "better him than me." Geogre 11:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is why PAIN was discontinued - my goodness, I've been called a bitch and other things which I'd prefer not to even repeat, and it harms me not at all. It harms the poster's reputation as someone who can keep their cool and/or make nice, yes - but that the heck is this? If I call someoe a name, it is irrelevant, and someone would do well to remind me to comment on the content, not the contributor. What is this, the civility police again? I repeat my previous advice: encourage people to be civil, yes. Act like it is a crime just short of infanticide to make a snippy comment or be less than completely polite and repectful? Bullshit. And as for the blocking admin, while I concur with Geogre that "the older admins have been encouraging this misbegotten, illogical, and inevitably crippling understanding of "help, help, I'm being repressed" hence the newer admins have been led down this absurd path, I am deeply concerned that Gaillimh states he "stands by" blocking MONGO, adding to his permanent block record that he was guilty of threats - which is patently untrue. Please clarify - are you sorry? in which case you erred, and should say so - or are you not? in which case... well, I've edited this about eight times and there is no polite way to say what I'm thinking. Let me just say, I'd prefer to see a "my very very bad, I have Learned" rather than "I stand by this block". KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the small lethal dog and the Geogre. We'll not stop people posting this crap, though, so what to do? How about a {{notattack}} boilerplate so we can drop it on the Talk of the complainant, archive the thread off here, and refer both parties to [{WP:DR]]? Guy (Help!) 15:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned, if what I said is construed as a personal attack or anything tantamount to a real physical threat, then I must have different perceptions than some. I've been called every name in the book, got a few death threats and whatnot since being on Wiki so maybe my jab seems to me to be a much to do about nothing. I have an I'm going to "whoop your ass" comment on my talkpage now by one editor who showed up obviously to antagonize the situation, but I merely played games with that in my exchange with ElC...obviously I can see much to do about nothing when it's obvious. I can't imagine why I would go running to a potentially sympathtic admin just because of a simple nothingness...just maybe as I stated, I've seen so much worse that this raises the bar of tolerance for me.--MONGO 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Seize that fire Mongo, you know I wouldn’t touch you, not even with the flower, I've distributed a lot's of smiles along with those massages, weren't you laughing? I was, since just a few spaces above Nuke has suffered indefinite block and I wrote about double standards and was about to provide a reference to illustrate such standards, and right from the blue there comes Mongo (with his little droogs). It was not only convenient, but lovely to say the least. So just to be clear on things, till yesterday you weren't on my watchlist at all, and you won't be after we see this through. You did insult me maliciously few days back, and I'm not about to turn the other cheek every time you and Regebro decide to have your little rampage. As I said before, here and there me & Mongo share a few words of disagreement and life goes on. I'd kindly advise you not to push that whoop all around the Wiki, it was a joke, come to think of it, TBeattyes & ElC's edits made me smile too… As for these latest developments, I do agree with the Thomas, it's not healthy if we are to have some sort of "poor language standard" here. We'll end up in Zoo. Lovelight 22:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This thread is about MONGO, not NuclearUmpf. I'm losing count - is that 3 times now or just twice that you've mentioned/advocated for NuclearUmpf (a recently blocked user who promised to use socks to 'harass the fags') in this thread alone? Be careful, that plus your editing patterns might lead someone to the doubtless erroneous conclusion that you are a sock of a blocked user. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My persistence in mentioning Nuke is because of obvious double standards, don't you see them? I'd advise you to go through the history, check things out a bit. As for your unfortunate and utterly unfounded remark, I'd suggest you retrieve it immediately. Lovelight 22:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing here, however, is that before this AN/I was started you had an opportunity simply to say "It wasn't meant as a threat" when Tyrenius communicated my "It wasn't meant as a 'fuck you'". There wasn't a big to do about anything at that point. As to "raising the bar", yes, that's the issue. KillerChihuahua may accept being called a bitch and worse; and you may accept receiving death threats. The question is whether you want to have your own behaviour judged with that as your standard. The question is whether you think WP should be an environment where that's just how we do things. I know I don't want to work in an environment where the bar is set that "high". (Think about that metaphor for a second. It's normally about the difficulty of a challenge. What we're really talking about here is how low the rhetorical bar should be.)--Thomas Basboll 21:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the thing here, as you put it, is was that a blockable offense? I found being called a bitch highly unacceptable. I told the person who did it how unacceptable I found it. That's not the point. The point is I didn't block nor did I report it, etc. We're not discussing levels of acceptable behavior. We're discussing whether blocks are appropriate blocks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'll stay out of the question of the block, which I don't actually understand. (Those who have pointed out that Mongo wasn't harrassing me are perfectly right.) Keep in mind that telling Mongo that I found his behaviour unacceptable (something I've done a few times before) would mean disrespecting his request that I stay away from his talk page (for ever). My appeal to Tyrenius was not a report, but a first step in a dispute resolution. Isn't that the most natural interpretation?--Thomas Basboll 22:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually no incivilities should be tolerated. I generally maintain a civil tone if I am dealing with someone who is civil. If they are accusatory, snide or condescending and it is persistant, then my patience for such behavior generally lessens, as would be expected. You've decided to concentrate on critical articles, at least one of which is one of the most visited articles on Wikipedia, so expecting that everyone is going to agree with alterations for which there is little or no consensus for, is probably not a likely event to expect.--MONGO 22:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think my behaviour here was snide or condescending or accusatory. I was offended by your edit summary and I told you so. You have lost your patience with me. And I with you. And so perhaps we should consider mediation. Otherwise our conflicts over the article will be as unproductive as this one. During such a mediation I can try to explain to you where I'm coming from. You consistently misunderstand my motives, and express that understanding, as I put it this time around, in inflammatory ways. That's been your approach to me from the beginning, sadly. Maybe this is an opportunity to see what I do in a new light.--Thomas Basboll 22:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:serafin

I originally posted what follows in italics on 19 February, but no admin bothered to respond, possibly because this user is such a aggravation:

Serafin has been evading his block, and has been continuing his disruptive editting. He was blocked on 19 January for 1 month, but since then has made ~100 edits see here, most of which have been personal attacks and none of which have been useful contributions. if you will read Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Serafin you will see how problematic he has been. He has been banned from both Polish and German wikipedias (sometimes known as Aserafin, Bserafin, Cserafin), further indication that his actions are not likely to contribute anything to the English wikipedia. if that wasn't enough of a smoking gun, I would like to direct you to a talk that took place between him and another polish-speaking editor, User_talk:Philip_Gronowski. Much of the discussion is in Polish, but Philip was kind enough to translate it for me here. the most incriminating part is where he states You can rest assured that I will be doing everything to close as many articles as I can. This was commented soon after the all the articles he had been editting were protected, and he had been blocked for a month. Can someone please block all his sockpuppets to allow the normal editors with good intentions to continue on wikipedia. and if he uses another anon IP, perhaps semi-protect the pages he has been seen to frequent.

I would also like to add that he is now unblocked, and using multiple accounts to 3RR violate on Germany article as well as many others. he is primary using his one IP address and User:Snieg and User:Serafin (the block on the latter ran out despite his evading his block ~100 times). I have also been told that user:Wiatr is another sockpuppet he just created, and is also the same name of another sockpuppet he created on German wikipedia. I would like to quote him, he said You can rest assured that I will be doing everything to close as many articles as I can. here and he is very well trying to do that, on Recovered Territories Germany and other articles. This person has been banned from both Polish and German wikipedias, why must we put up with such an editor when it is plain to see he is not here to be constructive or contribute to wikipedia in any way. The only thing he adds is more stress and frustration.

--Jadger 08:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, at the very least, we have severe edit warring going on here. Furthermore, Snieg does seem to me to be an obvious sockpuppet being used abusively. Before I make any decisions, could another administator or two have a look at this? Am I right in thinking this is an obvious case of sockpuppetry and that we needn't go through Checkuser? (Still pretty new to the admin bit, don't want to make any dumb decisions. Heimstern Läufer 22:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There has now been a result at CheckUser. But no block has followed as of now. The CheckUser result does not only prove that the first edit Serafin made after the block was actually violating the 3RR, but it is also further conclusive proof of the fact that Serafin evaded his one-month block. The following is the most recent history of Serafin's block evasions. There were some before it and not to mention those in the German wikipedia, but the following are directly relevant to the case and there should finally be a decision.

On January 17, J.smith reset his block of Serafin because of block evasion(s). On January 18, Serafin's continued block evasion(s) led J.smith to warn Serafin that any further edit by him "to anywhere other then this talk page before the block expires" would prompt J.smith to "extend the block to a month and propose a permanent ban". Well, Serafin continued and he was blocked by him for one month (though as far as I'm aware J.smith didn't propose the perma-ban). (for evidence most of the paragraph can be looked up at User_talk:Serafin#Blocked_from_editing_for_48_hours)

But a block lasting a week, a month or eternity could be all the same to Serafin - because why abide by any of them? So some days later J.smith noticed that Serafin was still editing and blocked his main IP for a week, which didn't even prevent Serafin from editing in this week ([117]).

I do not know exactly why J.smith stopped involvement but I believe that no admin would like to be the only one dealing with a large case for a long period of time. So please, admins, also get involved. Because of this history and because Serafin evaded his one-month block and the moment he got unblocked his revert warring even got more terrible, another one-month block is the least that can be done. Sciurinæ 22:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Serafin for another month and Snieg indefinitely. Heimstern Läufer 23:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple uploads of copyvio images

Could someone please take a look at the image uploads ofDannyg3332 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). User falsely claims to be photogapher Daniel Gluskoter and has labeled his images free for Wikipedia use but has not provided proper(any) credentials to support his claim. Initially this user was blocked for typical image vandalism but the block was lifted on the grounds of WP:AGF(simple newbie testing). In attempting to re-insert the copyvio images the user has breached WP:3RR on several articles. User has also gone beyond WP:CIVIL communication on several talkpages and has issued a number of personal attacks at User:Dudesleeper and User:Irishguy. User:Dannyg3332 was also caught vandalizing images over on Wiki-commons under the username User:Dgpics. These attempts were reverted by Commons admin Jkelly. A quick look into this situation would be appreciated before more copyvio uploads filter their way onto Wikipedia. Thank you. 156.34.220.114 11:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It says copyright right on most of the images, and when the user found out he couldn't upload them, he used cc-by-2.5. It seems like a waste of time like to nominate 15-20 different images for what is really a WP:SNOW case of WP:PUI. Request admin involvement. Part Deux 14:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide some links to the vandalism at Wikicommons? We don't have any evidence that they aren't his photos at present, which is the difficult part. - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

He is chastised for it here. These diffs [118] and [119] show where he blanked image information. IrishGuy ^talk 18:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Here on en-wiki, I haven't seen him doing anything that would be inconsistent with him actually being the photographer. If there are doubts, couldn't we just ask him to give some certification by sending us an e-mail from that photographer's domain or something of the kind? BTW, if he is not the photographer, how did he get access to all the photos in the first place? Those that are displayed on the website have some watermarks and stuff, and those he uploaded haven't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see why someone would pretend to be a photographer if they weren't. He most likely is Daniel Gluskoter. I simply provided the links because they were referenced in the initial post. I have no opinion one way or the other about the editor other than I find him to be sorely lacking in civility. His last message to me was a simple "F/Y". IrishGuy ^talk 20:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

He is Daniel Gluskoter. I sent an e-mail earlier to the contact address listed at dgpics.com, and I received a reply confirming it. —Chowbok ☠ 21:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sir-John-Peters and David Irving

I'm afraid I blocked him for WP:NPA and admitting to attempting to violate WP:NPOV, even though I was involved in reverting his actions at David Irving, and someone else blocked him for WP:3RR. I'm asking whether I've gone too far, as an involved admin, in blocking him. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No. You have not gone far enough. That is a single purpose account whose activity on Wikipedia is solely to deliberately insert bias into contentious articles. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And in addition, he is either completely bonkers or a troll. --Stephan Schulz 22:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Woah! Well, that won't do. Anyone feel like permablocking the ol' nutjob and having done with it now? 〈REDVEЯS〉 22:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments like "You MUST understand that I am doing a heroic and decent work in restoring Irvings credibility" demonstrate a user who is fundamentally incapable of understanding neutral point of view. Sam Blacketer 22:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• OK, indef-blocked. If he can find an admin prepared to unblock I'd be very surprised, especially given this comment linked above. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)