|
==Proposals, June 2007==
{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->
<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. -->
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->
If you create a stub type, please move its discussion to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/June 2007|the June archive]], add it to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types|list of stub types]], and add it to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive|archive summary]].
<!--add proposals below, with === level headers-->
== Exicornt Vandalism/EddieSegoura ==
===NEW PROPOSALS===
<!--Please add any new proposals below here using the same header level-->
<br /><br />
While checking into a possible sockpuppet situation on RfA, I discovered that {{vandal|Y-y-yoda}} and {{vandal|DavidOr tiz}}, both blocked exicornt vandals, are sockpuppets of {{vandal|EddieSegoura}}, who was suspected in the mass-exicornt vandalism on several other Wikimedia projects. Both had already been permablocked for exicornt vandalism, but a decision needs to be made on what to do with EddieSegoura. The floor is open for suggestions. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Essjay'''</font>]] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>[[User talk:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">Talk</font>]] • [[User:Essjay/Contact|<font color="#7b68ee">Connect</font>]]</small>)</font></span> 04:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
:Sure connection? An indefinite block would seem clearly called for. See above [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Exicornt Vandal|section]]. —[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 04:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
:: Essjay, how reliable is the connection? IIRC, the vandalism was done through AOL, so a CheckUser could be unreliable there. I would support an indefinite block if it were the case, though. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 04:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
:::If it were AOL, I wouldn't have reported it as a confirmed result; I am aware of the proxying behavior of AOL, and the unreliable nature of thier IP shifts. The above named accounts '''are not''' using AOL, they '''are''' using a static non-AOL IP, they '''are''' the only users using it, and they '''are''' using it in a manner that dispells any suggestion of dynamic assignment. They are the same person. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Essjay'''</font>]] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>[[User talk:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">Talk</font>]] • [[User:Essjay/Contact|<font color="#7b68ee">Connect</font>]]</small>)</font></span> 04:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
::::If they are the same person, then indefinate block is in order. He has been trolling for way too long. [[User:DGX|<font color="00FF00">D</font><font color="000000" >G</font>]][[User talk:DGX|<font color="00FF00">X</font>]] 04:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::It's been roughly six months of trolling, FWIW. —[[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] | [[User talk:Viriditas|Talk]] 06:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::I've applied an indefinite block; further review, as always, welcome. Now I'm going to try not to get too maudlin about the whole thing. —[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 04:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::I took the unusual approach of overturning Bunchofgrapes' original block and replacing an identical one of my own. I left some rationale behind the decision [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EddieSegoura&diff=prev&oldid=55206298 here]. At the moment, I think we need to decide what would be the best thing to do. At the moment, I think what would be best to do is to leave the block as is, and any administrator who wishes to take responsibility for shortening the block can do so at their own volition. At minimum, the block should stay for a little bit, but in deference to the original blocking sentiment, I'd like to get more opinions and see what others think about the situation. Thanks for your time and responses. --[[User:HappyCamper|HappyCamper]] 06:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::The recent activities of his sockpuppets show that he still doesn't understand how to work within Wikipedia, or else he's been trolling us all along. And the cross-project exic*nt fun suggests the latter. But in either case, it's been six months, and I think the community's patience is thoroughly worn out. The block should stand, in my opinion. [[User_talk:FreplySpang|FreplySpang]] 06:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Duly noted. Any others? --[[User:HappyCamper|HappyCamper]] 06:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
<--- unindenting...
Block fully supported on my end. I've dealt with this user before, and he has really, really worn out the patience of a lot of us, both here and at Wiktionary. [[User:NSLE|NSL]][[WP:EA|<font color="green">E]]</font> <sub>([[User_talk:NSLE|T]]+[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|C]])</sub> at 07:04 [[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]] <small>([[2006-05-26]])</small>
:I agree in that the block should stand; I also agree that Eddie's been trolling the crap out of us since the original Exicornt debate. He was fully aware that sockpuppets were the wrong way to go about things. [[User talk:RasputinAXP|<font color="#FFFFFF" style="background: maroon;"> RasputinAXP </font>]] [[Special:Contributions/RasputinAXP|<small>c</small>]] 13:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
:: I agree with the block too. Just wondering, is there any way a steward can check the IP range from this report on other projects, to be make a case for a Wikimedia-wide ban? [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 18:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
:::That would require a separate checkuser on every project; if there is reason to think he's active on another project, then I'm happy to hand the IPs off to a steward so they can check, but outside that, I doubt you're going to convince a steward to set permissions on hundreds of wikis and spend several days checking each. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Essjay'''</font>]] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>[[User talk:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">Talk</font>]] • [[User:Essjay/Contact|<font color="#7b68ee">Connect</font>]]</small>)</font></span> 21:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
::::He also uses AOL, wth which he's been evading his block/ban. [[User:NSLE|NSL]][[WP:EA|<font color="green">E]]</font> <sub>([[User_talk:NSLE|T]]+[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|C]])</sub> at 01:02 [[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]] <small>([[2006-05-27]])</small>
:::He's prolly upset over the whole ordeal and is sorry. {{Unsigned|205.188.116.65|07:01, 28 May 2006}}
::::Too late now, Eddie. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 07:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Never. What have I done to wrong you, Calton? I never attacked You or messed up Your edits.
=== Personality & Preference Inventory===
::::Don't make it personal, Eddie. Besides, it's what you've done to Wikipedia that's at issue, namely, trying to hijack it as a vehicle for promoting a word you made up. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 04:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
<br />
Can't find it and not sure how to put the info across as an NPOV. Will suggest stub. Can anyone help? <br />[[User:AVISSER|Cookie Monster]] 10:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
==={{tl|GB-MP-stub}} / [[:Category:Great Britain MP stubs (1701-1800)]] ===
:::While the small handful of users wants Me to quit editing WP, I will continue working without an username. I am willing to negotiate and agree with a shorter "Block" but if My username is locked indefinitely, what have I got to lose by contributing more edits if they're productive. Besides, this discussion is over fact I have more then one account that posted content that another user rejected. --[[mailto:Eddie@EddieSegoura.com Eddie]] 21:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC) <small> Actually by {{User|207.200.116.138}}</small>
:''Moved from [[WP:SFD]] [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 00:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)''
'''Propose creation''' of new stub template, and associated category, plus renaming of another related stub category.<br />The existing {{tl|UK-MP-stub}} is designed for [[Members of Parliament]] for the [[Parliament of the United Kingdom]], which was only created in 1801 after the [[Acts of Union 1800]]. However, {{tl|UK-MP-stub}} is also being being used for members of the predecessor [[Parliament of Great Britain]] (1707-1800), members of which should be categorised separately.<br />The proposed structure can be summarised as:
::::''While the small handful of users wants Me to quit editing WP...'' Eddie, you're '''community banned'''. You've exhausted the patience of multiple editors and admins, not "a small handful", and your recent edits have been anything BUT productive. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 04:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
* [[Parliament of Great Britain]] → [[:Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain]] → {{tl|GB-MP-stub}} / [[:Category:Great Britain MP stubs (1701-1800)]]
:::Even if I did drive some people crazy, it's never too late to ask them for forgivness. Its a shame You feel I'm a terrible user. --[[mailto:Eddie@EddieSegoura.com Eddie]] 06:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
* [[Parliament of the United Kingdom]] → [[:Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament]] → {{tl|UK-MP-stub}} / [[:Category:British MP stubs]] (should be renamed to [[:Category:United Kingdom MP stubs]])
<small> Actually by {{User|152.163.100.65}}</small>
--[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 21:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
*How is this for numbers - are there currently 60+ stubs which could do with this? If not, certainly an upmerged template is a good option until such time as there are. I agree about the change in the name of the category if a split is warranted. Not entirely convinced by the name GB-MP-stub, but I can't think of a better one... [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 00:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Eddie, quit trying to foist off the responsibility on others: it's '''your''' bad behavior that's at issue. Your apparent inability to accept that doesn't help you. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 06:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
*I don't have tools to allow an easy count, but I am currently running [[:Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain]] through [[WP:AWB|AWB]] to split it into [[:Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for English constituencies|English]], [[:Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for Scottish constituencies|Scottish]] and [[:Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for Welsh constituencies|Welsh]] sub-categories, and I reckon that there are well over a hundred stub articles for which {{tl|GB-MP-stub}} would be useful. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 14:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::I'm not blaming others, I'm just asking for forgiveness. --[[mailto:Eddie@EddieSegoura.com Eddie]] 11:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
*New cat would get 108, though there's the complication that 25 would have to be double-stubbed, so this isn't exactly what you'd call a "clean split". Also bear in mind that there's existing subcats by a) party, and b) constituent nation, as well as c) currency. Given that this is somewhat in the spirit of the third axis, whose permcat was deleted ({{cl|Current British MP stubs}}, {{cl|current British MPs}}), I wonder if we shouldn't save ourselves some work by waiting until the permcats stop to-ing and fro-ing, and then come up with a consistent scheme. Oh, and if this does go ahead, I'd favour {{tl|Britain-MP-stub}} for the template. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 14:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::I didn't say you were "blaming others", I was saying you were trying to foist the responsibility for your treatment on others. "[S]mall handful of users", "What have I done to wrong you[?]", "Even if I did drive ''some'' people [emphasis mine] crazy"; all these are ways redirect blame from yourself, as if it's the reaction of others that's the problem. And more to the point, you haven't said more than a generic "I'm sorry" without the least acknowledgement of ''why'' you're supposed to sorry. So, direct question, Eddie: why have you been community banned? --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 00:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Well according to this discussion it's because either I have more than one account or because I posted a redirect under a word that was reject by other users. Some said that I've been "[[trolling]]" but that's not true. I don't harass members. Besides, I would not have been forced out of a username had it not been for this discussion. It will be archived soon so unless You're offended by Me interacting with You, I'll have to email You. --[[mailto:Eddie@EddieSegoura.com Eddie]] 02:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::''Well according to this discussion...'' The moment I read that, I knew I was in trouble, and the rest was just confirmation. No, you don't understand at all. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::This discussion is still going on? Don't feed the Eddie, folks. It's what he wants. [[User talk:RasputinAXP|<font color="#FFFFFF" style="background: maroon;"> RasputinAXP </font>]] [[Special:Contributions/RasputinAXP|<small>c</small>]] 02:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Sorry it is, I will continue to dispute this whether you likt it or not. I'm not stupid. --[[mailto:Eddie@EddieSegoura.com Eddie]] 06:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
===Miscellaneous double-stubbing mashup===
==[[User:Doc_glasgow]] is on another userbox deletion spree citing T2==
The following all have double-stubbings of more than 80, where one of the types is in the 600..800 range.
[[User:Doc_glasgow]] has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Doc+glasgow&page= delete 50+ political and/or POV userbox templates], citing [[WP:CSD#Templates]] speedy deletion criteria for templates T2, which is [[Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates |heavily]] [[Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates |contested]], never was introduced as policy and has no consensus. According to the official speedy deletion criteria T1 only "divisive or inflammatory" templates should be speedy-deleted. These actions blatantly disregard process and consensus on Wikipedia. I request that the speedy deleted templates are restored and T2 deletion actions are ceased. [[User:CharonX|CharonX]] 02:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
*{{cl|Pittsburgh geography stubs}} 81
*{{cl|New York City geography stubs}} 85
*{{cl|United Kingdom hospital stubs}} 80
*{{cl|American biologist stubs}} 75
*{{cl|Zimbabwean sculptor stubs}} 72
*{{cl|Canadian lacrosse biography stubs}} 68
*{{cl|Hungarian Olympic medalist stubs}} 69
*{{cl|Malaysian building and structure stubs}} 67
*{{cl|Australian poet stubs}} 65
*{{cl|United Kingdom publishing company stubs}} 65
Most of the parentages should be obvious; two that are less so are Hospital_stubs+United_Kingdom_medical_organisation_stubs and Asian_building_and_structure_stubs+Malaysia_geography_stubs (the latter perhaps being food for thought as to what -geo- stubs are actually used for, "on the ground".) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 21:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
*Malaysia's been long overdue for its own struct stub template at least, and now a category seems a good move - and like similar struct stubs, its parents should be {{cl|Asian building and structure stubs}} and {{cl|Malaysia stubs}} (not {{cl|Malaysia geography stubs}}, since buildings aren't normally grouped in with geo-stubs). I'd be inclined to put the UK hospitals in {{cl|Hospital stubs}}, {{cl|United Kingdom medical organisation stubs}} ''and'' {{cl|United Kingdom building and structure stubs}}, since the articles are likely to be at least in part about the buildings themselves, much like with theatre stubs and museum stubs. Yes to all the others (72 Zimbabwean sculptor stubs? Whoda thought...?), though I'd ask whether the NYC and Pittsburgh geo-stubs are likely to affect the way the rest of the state-geo-stubs are likely to be split in future... will it make for problems with Penn and NYState later? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 00:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
**I forgot the ob. whoda thought?: thanks for correcting that omission. :) I shouldn't have said "parentage", I really meant "constituents of the double-stubbing" (though in most cases they're the same thing). I don't think splitting by city is going to be a problem; elsewhere we've split by county, but then we tend to end up upmerging them to μSAs, MSAs, CSAs, unofficial regions with articles defining their scope, or totally made up ones. Cities of significant size will invariably correspond to (the population centres of) *SAs, so they can just be made a subcat. (Chicago and Chicagoland are already done this way, for example.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
===US schools by state===
:I thought that userbox mass deletion was endorsed by Jimbo? Henceforth we should not be blaming admins who support Jimbo, we should be blaming Jimbo. The fact that userboxes state affiliations and hence biases, and hence make public the POV pushing that exists on Wikipedia is relevant. It proves that [[WP:NPOV]] cannot work. Perhaps Jimbo wants to hold on to the illusion that we are all robots? [[User:203.122.194.131|203.122.194.131]] 16:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
*{{cl|Iowa school stubs}} 73
*{{cl|Nebraska school stubs}} 71
*{{cl|Alabama school stubs}} 69
*{{cl|Utah school stubs}} 65
*{{cl|South Carolina school stubs}} 64
Similar deal to below. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 21:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
*third time '''Speedy''' support. [[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 21:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy support for the first four'''. I'm not happy with lumping the Carolinas together, though. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 00:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
**Hey, it's good enough for the NFL... That was a typo, fixed. (If one really had to lump the two, I think "Carolinas" would be more usual, though the USCB defines also smaller component regions of the South.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
***"Nothing could be finah than to be in Carolinah in the moooooooorning..." (and the song never says which one)...[[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] <small><font color="green">[[User talk:Pegship| (tis herself)]]</font></small> 03:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
===US radio stations by state===
::I don't understand why Userboxes, which are meant to be on User pages, which are never encyclopedic to begin with, cannot be NPOV. That and the sysop who deleted all of the templates has been desysopped and has left Wikipedia for good (after being disruptive and deleting WP pages among others). T2 is no longer a rule, and T1 is still being contested. And Jimbo does not endorse mass deletion (at least from what I gathered [[Wikipedia_talk:T1_and_T2_debates#What_Jimbo_actually_wrote|here]]). [[User:Ryulong|Ryulong]] 03:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
*{{cl|Pennsylvania radio station stubs}} 131
*{{cl|Florida radio station stubs}} 115
*{{cl|North Carolina radio station stubs}} 110
*{{cl|New York radio station stubs}} 92
*{{cl|South Carolina radio station stubs}} 84
*{{cl|Illinois radio station stubs}} 64
*{{cl|Indiana radio station stubs}} 60
*{{cl|Minnesota radio station stubs}} 59
All are currently populated from double-upmerged templates, so again I'm inclined to speedy these. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 20:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
*Again '''Speedy''' Support. [[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 21:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
===European actor subcats===
What Jimbo endorses is [[Wikipedia:The German solution|The German solution]], i.e., the userfying of all the userboxes, with POV allowed. Some industrious users are already at work, setting up directories of userboxes in the user space. It's basically a done deal. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 03:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been creating a number of upmerged stub templates for European actors, but two of them are now at exactly 60, so no longer need to be: {{tl|Denmark-actor-stub}} and {{tl|Spain-actor-stub}}. I propose to create cats fairly speedily. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 18:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy''' support. [[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 21:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
==={{Tl|Lithuania-footy-bio-stub}}===
== '''-Ril- is Back !''' ==
Upmerged template with over 60 articles. Suggest speedy create cat.[[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 11:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
He is just ignoring us and is using his sock puppets to avoid his Block! What can be done? He has more than one "tell" that gives him away. --[[User:Sott|Sott]] 08:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
*Agree with suggestion. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 14:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
==={{cl|geology stubs}} subcats===
== ''Ril's Signature'' ==
*{{cl|tectonics stubs}} 107
---'''{{Userblock|-Ril-}}''' AKA -- -- [[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks|There is no cabal]]-- -- [[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] -- -- [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] ( [[User:-Ril-/BarBoy|!]] | [[User:-Ril-/Temple Bar|?]] | [[User:-Ril-/Nissa|*]] ) -- --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|(?)]] -- --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small><sup>ask?</sup></small>]] -- --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc Glasgow]]
*{{cl|geochronology stubs}} 122
*{{cl|volcanology stubs}} 63
Parent is oversized; these look to be viable, and not to overlap too much, if I'm understanding the category structure correctly. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 02:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
:Fully support split & willing to help populate as time permits. [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] 02:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
:Support; good idea. [[User:Avenue|Avenue]] 03:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
:Support - will sit nicely along glaciology-stub. With the usual caveat about volcanology (vulanology?) not being for actual volcanoes, of course. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 06:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
:Support. Makes sense to me with the assumption that all these stubs will be under the roof of Geology project. [[User:Solarapex|Solarapex]] 10:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
::They'll all be subcats of {{cl|geology stubs}}, and a project link or banner on the category page wouldn't seem amiss. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
==={{cl|dramatist and playwright stubs}}===
This User and his Sockpuppets can be recognised by his confusing signatures. He '''is''' avoiding the userblock. --[[User:Rixx|Rixx]] 04:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't have an exact count for this (though I suspect it's close to threshold just from the UK), but surely we should have this given the two existing national D&P stub types. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 20:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] <small><font color="green">[[User talk:Pegship| (tis herself)]]</font></small> 17:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
==={{cl|United Kingdom children's writer stubs}}===
==Stalk and block==
Oversized parent, 64 of them are in the "children's writers" tree, and no other "by genre" cat. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 19:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
'''{{Userblock|-Ril-}}''' AKA -- -- [[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks|There is no cabal]]-- -- [[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] -- -- [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] ( [[User:-Ril-/BarBoy|!]] | [[User:-Ril-/Temple Bar|?]] | [[User:-Ril-/Nissa|*]] ) -- --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|(?)]] -- --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small><sup>ask?</sup></small>]] -- --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc Glasgow]] has always been a bit if a bully. His old Sockpuppets used to like to stalk and redirect. Now that he has admin powers he is even more of a problem. See what Doc/Ril did to [[User:TheFacts|TheFacts]] !!
*'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] <small><font color="green">[[User talk:Pegship| (tis herself)]]</font></small> 22:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
He is a problem user who can cover up what he does! --[[User:Rixx|Rixx]] 04:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
==={{cl|legal term stubs}}===
:So Doc Glasgow is a stalker? Then why did he delete his userpage? Because he was the victim of stalking? Or because he is hiding what he has done? On the internet, stalkers and their victims can become muddied to the untrained eye. Think carefully before presuming who is the guilty party. [[User:203.122.194.131|203.122.194.131]] 16:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
At least 90 of them; parent is of course very oversized. Existing subcat {{cl|Latin legal stubs}} (should be "phrases"). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 18:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
==={{cl|Electronic sports stubs}}===
::''The'' guilty party? I try not to attend any other kind. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 03:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
There is an [[Electronic sports]] category ({{cl|Electronic sports}}) but no stub. I think it would be a good idea to create one for a bunch of [[Electronic sports]] articles that may begin to arise as [[Electronic sports|esports]] hits national TV. One such is the [[Complexity Gaming]] article. [[User:Digx|Digx]] 08:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
:'''oppose''' need enough existing stub articles. [[User:Monni1995|Monni]] 04:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
==={{cl|United States media company stubs}}===
==[[User:Striver/users that view the 9/11 attacks article as govement pov]]==
Parent oversized -- indeed, just about double-oversized -- 91 in the corresponding permcat hierarchy. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
i created a user sub-page to gather information, NOT to create dialog, and MONGO just deleted it outright. Could somebody undelete it? Is he allowed to just outright delete my userspace sub-article just like that? --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 00:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
*Already listed with 3 or 4 others on the to do list . [[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 11:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
:There's a good reason to delete this subpage, which is that it can be used for vote stacking to support a certain POV. However, that's [[WP:MFD]] business, so as there is no other discussion here I've restored it. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] <small>[[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]</small> 02:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
**D'oh. Forgot to check for redlink-links... [[User:Alai|Alai]] 14:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
::Please look at this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=User:Striver/users_that_view_the_9/11_attacks_article_as_govement_pov] . Can a admin behave in that maner?--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 09:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
===Split of {{Tl|linebacker-stub}} and {{tl|runningback-stub}}===
:::I'm always concerned about the govement. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 09:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Both are over 700, propose split by decade of birth as per precedent set by other position splits. [[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 23:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
:::If you want to make a list, get out a piece of paper. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 22:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
*Support this and below, per prodigious quantity of precedents (and all bot-populable, to boot). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
:*I'd be very grateful if someone could popoulate these by bot, my knowledge of that side of things is poor, I will go through and try to pick up anything the bot misses, otherwise it will be a long hard slog. [[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 11:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
===Split of {{Tl|England-footy-midfielder-stub}} and defendesr and strikers===
I have restored it twice now. If it is deleted again you will have to use [[WP:DRV]]. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] <small>[[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]</small> 00:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Different shaped ball same solution by decade of birth split Defender and Midifelders are over 700 and strikers are just shy of 600 (stitch in time) nb goalkeepers are way off at less than 300 and not worth splitting yet.[[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 23:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
==={{cl|military decoration stubs}}===
Thank you. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 00:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This looks viable as a subcat of {{cl|order, decoration, and medal stubs}}, and more to the point will help get rid of a few from {{cl|military stubs}}, which despite some recent shrinkage is still oversized. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
==={{cl|Seine-et-Marne geography stubs}}===
The region cat {{cl|Île-de-France geography stubs}} is oversized now, so time to split into departments. Only this one is clearly over threshold at the moment, at 409 (cough). However, some others are close-ish Val-de-Marne, 49; Yvelines, 41; Seine-Saint-Denis, 40; Essonne, 39; and Val-d'Oise, 37. Paris is only at 32, but when one adds in the {{tl|Streets of Paris-stub}} (see /D), it's also rather close. I'll create templates for all of them, and then see what happens. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
:As I said at /D, I object to adding the streets to that section. Road-stubs aren't listed as geo-stubs for anywhere else, so why Paris? Far better to make a France-road-stub and category for it to upmerge to. As to Seine-et-Marne's category and the other templates, though, that sounds fine. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 03:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
::I don't especially care in this instance, since one the first one's done it'll be off my to-do list (hopefully for some considerable time), but as I said the previous time you made this objection, I don't see the expansion-oriented logic of lumping urban streets, and articles like [[Place du Colonel Fabien]], in with say [[A151 autoroute]] (not marked as a stub, but looks like one to me). Some common sense about when things "must" be sorted by type (as well as when they must not be) would be a plan. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 04:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
:I just don't see why France should be treated any differently to the UK, US, Australia, and Canada - in each of those cases, urban roads are not treated as geo-stubs, they quite logically get road-stub. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 23:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
==={{cl|political term stubs}}===
MONGO put it for MFD, another admin speedie keept it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Striver/users_that_view_the_9/11_attacks_article_as_govement_pov&diff=prev&oldid=56861009], MONGO unanimosly undid the other admins desicion: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Striver/users_that_view_the_9/11_attacks_article_as_govement_pov&diff=next&oldid=56865241]. Or did i missunderstand something? --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 19:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:Look{{cl|politics atstubs}} theis diffs...thatanother waslarge seperateand votemurky thattype, wasbut movedthis tolooks Tfdlike a viable subcat.-- [[User:MONGOAlai|MONGOAlai]] 1916:3203, 415 June 20062007 (UTC)
::What does that mean? (I feel stupid...) --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 19:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Somebody had added a malformed deletion vote to another article that was moved to templates for deletion.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 19:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:Do you have a good template name in mind? [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] <sup>[[User_talk:Valentinian|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|C]]</sup> 01:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
==Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle: unblocking==
::I'd suggest paralleling geo-term-stub and the like, and making it {{tl|poli-term-stub}}. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 02:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I went [[WP:BB|bold]] and moved it to a subpage: [[/Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle]] - the thread is 190 kilobytes long. [[User:Misza13|Misza]][[WP:ESP|<span style="color:green">'''13'''</span>]] <sup><u>'''[[User talk:Misza13|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Misza13|C]]'''</u></sup> 17:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
==={{cl|qualification stubs}}===
== Reiki vandal and suspected sock puppet ==
The {{cl|education stubs}} are long-standing oversized, and the corresponding permcats hurt my eyes and brain. But this looks a clear-cut case: 70 of these. I wonder if we shouldn't also consider an {{tl|edu-bio-stub}}; the number don't look tremendous, but it'd also be a parent to existing cats (some of which I can't help but wonder if there's over-sorting to). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 15:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' both per nom. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] <small><font color="green">[[User talk:Pegship| (tis herself)]]</font></small> 16:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
==={{cl|Federalist Paper stubs}}===
User 58.178.137.47 vandalised [[Reiki]] with this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reiki&curid=166329&diff=55704581&oldid=55680868 edit]. Given the history of edits, can someone please check if the account is a sockpuppet. Thanks. [[User:Mccready|Mccready]] 08:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
{{cl|United States government stubs}} is oversized, this would take care of it for the time being: there's 69 of these. Alternatively, could broaden this out to {{cl|United States official document stubs}}, of which there'd be 82 (including the above, which is a subcat). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 00:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
:Except that strictly speaking the Federalist papers, for all that they are used to interpret the founders' intent with respect to the Constitution, they aren't official. Indeed they're a subcat of a different cat, ''United States '''historical''' documents''. Given the brevity of these papers (after all, each was in origin a newspaper editorial) I'm hard-pressed to see where a lot of these will ever be more than short articles serving as a bridge between articles on Supreme Court cases that cited them and the relevant Wikisource entry. That said I could live with a {{cl|United States Constitution stubs}}. <span style="font-family:cursive">[[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]]</span> [[User_talk:Caerwine|<small style="font-family:sans-serif;color:darkred">Caer’s whines</small>]] 03:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
::That's not the subcatting route I'm referring to (since it's not in the government subtree), but rather, {{cl|Federalist Papers}} being in {{cl|United States Constitution}}, which is indeed in {{cl|Official documents of the United States}}. Some Chinese whispers at work, perhaps. By permcat, {{cl|United States Constitution stubs}} would contain the 69 Federalist Papers, and exactly one other. (Usual undercatting caveats.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Its a case where A being a subcat of B and B a subcat of C both make sense despite A not being a subcat of C in any way shape or form. That happens with cats. Since there won't ever be any more Federalist papers written, I'm dubious about a stub type for them. It probably would be more profitable to go with {{tl|US-federal-gov-stub}} / {{cl|United States Government stubs}} (note the capitalization of Government) with parent {{cl|Government of the United States}} and move the existing {{tl|US-gov-stub}} / {{cl|United States government stubs}} up in parentage to {{cl|Government in the United States}} as there are a number of State and local government stubs in United States government stubs that strictly speaking shouldn't be under the current scope. <span style="font-family:cursive">[[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]]</span> [[User_talk:Caerwine|<small style="font-family:sans-serif;color:darkred">Caer’s whines</small>]] 04:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
::::That's what I meant by the "Chinese whispers" effect, and yes, it happens with cats: an annoying amount. I agree that the FPs aren't the most obvious stub cat scope, but if these are "permastubs", at least they're not cluttering up the parents, and if they do get expanded, they can be upmerged. However, I'd certainly also be in favour of splitting up these on fed/state/local grounds, whether with one, two or three such local categories. It also looks to me that {{cl|United States state government stubs}} would be viable, with 74 articles at the most conservative estimates. (i.e. current US-govs in the immediate subcats of {{cl|State governments of the United States}}). I'd also agree with your re-parenting suggestion (what an entirely inobvious and opaque distinction in category names!). [[User:Alai|Alai]] 15:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
==={{cl|Radio Presenter stubs}}===
: Mcready. You are most unhelpful. Why don't you try talking to me? You bet I know my way around Wikipedia. Your behaviour is borderline breaching [[WP:OWN]] on that article. You are making the mistake of thinking you couldn't possibly be in the minority when actually, you are in the minority. Your edits are unwanted. Get over yourself. I am nobodies sockpuppet. I am simply anonymous. [[User:58.178.137.47|58.178.137.47]] 11:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
{{unsigned|124.180.204.52}}
==Old business==
: Further to that, which user are you also accusing? Who do you claim I am sockpuppet of? I hope you notified them. [[User:58.178.137.47|58.178.137.47]] 04:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
<!-- END OF COMMENT PHASE -->
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="Old Business" style="background-color: #FFFFCC; border: 1px solid #663300; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;">Everything from here on down has passed the five day proposal period. Unless discussion to determine consensus is actively on-going, proposals may be acted upon, to be created, or noted as not approved. Move this marker up as time passes.</div>
==={{cl|Australian sport stubs}}===
::I don't know if he's a sockpuppet, but he was a vandal. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 22:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Australia stubs are oversized, this looks like the most coherent group to split out, with 58 in the {{cl|sport in Australia}} permcat tree. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
===Fire Equiptment/Alarms stub===
== [[User:Encyclopedist]] (aka Clyde vandal) announces massive vandalism attack ==
{{sfp nocreate}}
{{unsigned|Thedjatclubrock}}
*See {{tl|firefighting-stub}}. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] <small><font color="green">[[User talk:Pegship| (tis herself)]]</font></small> 19:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
That is not it. I mean Sirens, Horns and commercial fire alarms. For ex see [[notifier]]{{unsigned|Thedjatclubrock}}
A few weeks back, Encyclopedist blew up at [[User:John Reid]], and launched a major sock-puppetting attack on John. When the attack was traced back to Encyclopedist and the underlying IP was blocked, Encyclopedist staged a showy exit from the project. Except he has never fully left, continuing to request unblocking of the IP [[User talk:65.32.158.193|itself]]. This request has been denied several times.
*[[Notifier]] is a company and would be sorted under some type of company stub. Under {{cl|Fire detection and alarm}} there are only 14 articles; if I go up the hierarchy I only see maybe twice that number under the whole umbrella of {{cl|Fire protection}} and its sub-cats. If there is an associated WikiProject, 30+ stubs is the lowest number at which a stub template is considered; if not, 60+. Until those numbers can be reached I see no need for anything more specific than {{tl|firefighting-stub}}. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] <small><font color="green">[[User talk:Pegship| (tis herself)]]</font></small> 04:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
==={{cl|telecommunications term stubs}}===
Now, on that IP talk page, he says that he was the "Clyde vandal" (not familiar with that vandal myself), that he's about to gain access to a large number of different computers from which to edit, and about to launch some new, major vandal attacks against John Reid, [[User:Mackensen]], and the project in general.
Oversized parent, 54 of these on the basis of catting; shouldn't be hard to find a few more. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 06:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
==={{cl|Russian scientist stubs}}===
No idea how credible the threat is, but this guy has definitely displayed some finesse in his previous attacks on John. Mostly wanted to toss this up here to get a few more eyes on alert if he does begin his threatened assault tomorrow. - [[User:TexasAndroid|TexasAndroid]] 18:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Surprised we don't have this one already. At any rate, parent is now Officially Big, 141 permcat-based possibilities for this. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 05:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
==={{cl|Greater Vancouver Regional District geography stubs}}===
:He was indeed the Clyde vandal (see [[User:Essjay/Checkuser/Cases/CIyde]]); I knew at the time there was a connection through university IPs, but because he was considered an upstanding Wikipedian, I decided that it was another student at the university. It is entirely possible that he's graduated now, but if not, a phone call to the University's ITS department, and perhaps to the Dean's office, will clear it up immediately, permanently, and to the satisfaction of all involved. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Essjay'''</font>]] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>[[User talk:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">Talk</font>]] • [[User:Essjay/Contact|<font color="#7b68ee">Connect</font>]]</small>)</font></span> 02:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
BC-geo-stubs are oversized, splitting by regional district seems the obvious thing to do. 40 on the basis of just double-stubbing. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 04:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
==={{cl|television documentary stubs}}===
::Erm, if it helps in identifying him, [[:Image:St Pete meetup - Jimbo, Encyclopedist.jpg|here's a picture I took of him (sitting next to Jimbo Wales) at the St. Pete meetup]] [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 02:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
{{sfp top|hold off for now}}
:::(Presumably after seeing my above post) Encyclopedist emailed me tonight to say that he will not be vandalizing anymore. A call to his university is not necessarily. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 03:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Another reproposal: see [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/February_2007#Cat:television_documentary_stubs|here]]. If people want to actually go ahead with the topic-based fishing expedition, I'll hold off; if not, this looks the only one that's ''remotely'' close to being viable on the basis of permcatting. (Sport is about 30, everything else way below.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 15:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
*I'll tackle this later in the week, after I wrestle US-tv-prog-stub to the ground. Thanks for the heads-up. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] <small><font color="green">[[User talk:Pegship| (tis herself)]]</font></small> 18:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
**Have begun with {{tl|bio-documentary-stub}}; more to come. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] <small><font color="green">[[User talk:Pegship| (tis herself)]]</font></small> 04:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
==={{cl|Chinese scientist stubs}}===
::::He has posted to my Talk page as [[User:MyApology]] and ''sounds'' sincere. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Touch and go at 58, but much needed, as the China-bios are still growing: almost at 1000. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
==={{cl|economics and finance book stubs}}===
==Problems with [[User:MONGO]]==
{{sfp create}}
{{cl|Non-fiction book stubs}} are still oversized; {{cl|business books}}, {{cl|finance books}} and {{cl|economics books}} seem to disappear up their own fundaments in a category cycle, so pick your take for a suitable category name. Population of 72, by my count. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 02:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Works for me'''. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] <small><font color="green">[[User talk:Pegship| (tis herself)]]</font></small> 03:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
==={{cl|2000s thriller film stubs}}===
Over on [[Talk:7 World Trade Center]], [[User:MONGO]] has been personally attacking me, calling me an "idiot," and threatening to block me based solely on my viewpoint. See, for example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A7_World_Trade_Center&diff=56086080&oldid=56073453]. I feel he has all but forbidden me from editing that page at all, declaring any advancement of alternate viewpoints on the collapse of 7 WTC to be "policy violations" and trying to determine the outcome of a content dispute by threatening to use his admin powers. See, e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A7_World_Trade_Center&diff=53112460&oldid=53108233].
'00s drama films is oversized, this looks like the most promising possible new subcat... but only 43 are catted that way. Anyone think they can drag up another 17? (I could start with populating an upmerged template if that would help.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
==={{cl|United States opera singer stubs}}===
I'm fed up with his behavior. I don't want to file an RfC at this time, but I'd appreciate it if someone would have a talk with him. --[[User:Hyperbole|Hyperbole]] 07:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
{{sfp create}}
Seems to be 60-odd of these. The opera singers aren't in urgent need of being split, but the US-singer-stubs are, and this would take care of a handful of them, at least. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
==={{tl|US-rail-stub}} subtypes===
::uh, yeah, there's really no point in this, if you knew anything about MONGO's past you'd realize 2 things:
Oversized, here's two possibilities:
::one) as an admin he threatens personal violence against people he doesn't like '''a lot less''' than he used to, and I happen to prefer the milder, '''less'''-likely-to-threaten-to-track-you-down-and-send-you-to-prison-for-disagreeing-with-him-on-the-internet MONGO, a kinder, gentler MONGO if you will,
*{{cl|Defunct United States railroad companies stubs}} 187
::and two) you're not telling people something they don't already know, if you'll take a quick look at his RFA for instance, you'll see that most of the support was based on the fact that he is incredibly and openly partasain, as well as openly hostile, heck, half the support votes were from people who have been long since banned for open trolling, so if you think something's actually changed since then to errode that kind of support, you're quite mistaken--[[User:64.12.116.65|64.12.116.65]] 11:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
or:
*{{cl|Class I United States railroad stubs}} 144
Anyone have a preference? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 19:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
: Can't we do the old split into 50 templates and upmerge to the 4 regions. Otherwise no preference (both?) [[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 21:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::Trouble with that is there'll be a lot of multi-stubbing, as most railroads seem to cover more than one state, and in some cases a large number of states. I'll see if I can get some numbers of that, though... [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:What about splitting out locomotives and/or trains? Would that reduce the burden any? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 10:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
::Hrm, not a bad plan... It's a little swamped in the numbers by the mass of railway operating companies, but if we smoosh together the contents of the {{cl|trains}} and {{cl|rolling stock}} (I'd have thought one would be a subcat of the other, but seemingly I'd have been wrong), there's around 80. It's a somewhat broad church, but at least it would separate them from the above. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 14:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:::It would be especially useful to split out the paper railroads since I imagine that they are most likely to remain stubby and provide the worst inflation to the numbers. [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] 16:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
==={{cl|2000s Japanese single stubs}}===
:He'd be blocking you for violating [[WP:NPOV]] and being a disruption, not for your views. Please find a more productive way to contribute. .:.[[User:Jareth|Jareth]].:. <sup>[[User_talk:Jareth|babelfish]]</sup> 07:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
{{sfp create}}
:I never called you an idiot.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 07:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
{{cl|2000s single stubs}} is oversized; we'd ideally want to split by genre, but isn't the Japanese music scene nigh unto a genre unto itself? There's 120 of these, at any rate. Only other obvious possibility seems to be #1 singles, which it strikes me is unlikely to be of much use, since it smooshes together #1s in ''completely different countries and charts'', which is pretty pointless for almost any editor I can think of. (The singles and songs need either more use of "genre" cats, or else for their by-artists cats to be put in genre categories, as the album-by-artist cats are.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 19:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::I told you what I believed, and you said that anyone with those beliefs was an idiot. Let's not split hairs. --[[User:Hyperbole|Hyperbole]] 07:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
*As I understand things, the Japanese music scene is separate from that in the United States. I need a new stub category for an article on the A&M single "Reimy - Speed of Light" on which I am still gathering data (some awaiting translation from ja.Wikipedia.org). Recommend, as an alternate, '''Category:Japanese song stubs'''. - [[User:B.C.Schmerker|B.C.Schmerker]] 04:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:::That is a matter of perception.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 07:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
**{{cl|Japanese song stubs}} looks sensible (and likely to be over threshold) to me, too. It might require a certain amount of double-stubbing rather than splitting, though. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 05:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:::You are complaining about my comments, yet I even seriously offered to nominate you for adminship since you think I am so unfit. The offer still stands of course.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 07:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
::::I don't want adminship; I don't have that level of experience yet. What I want is civil discussion and the respect every contributor to Wikipedia should be due. You seem determined not to provide that. --[[User:Hyperbole|Hyperbole]] 07:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::It's like this you see...ask once, the answer is "no". Ask twice, the answer is "NO". Ask a third time and the answer is "NO!" The fourth time and it becomes "Are you hard of hearing? NO way!" Of course there is a fifth and it becomes, "NO WAY! NEVER! Stop asking!" Eventually the response (after incessant badgering about the same old tired nonsense)..."You must be an idiot!"...see [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 07:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
==={{cl|Latin America and the Caribbean singer stubs}}===
MONGO ignoring desicions made at ANI: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Striver.2Fusers_that_view_the_9.2F11_attacks_article_as_govement_pov]
{{cl|Singer stubs}} is large again, and the biggest unsplit countries by permcat are Brazil and Argentina, with Jamaica and the Dominican Republic in single-digit remainder. Before anyone protests that we split the Americas into "North" and "South"... well, why? That's not how the UN geoscheme works, and we really need to decide whether we're following it, or not. This would be smallish, but Mexico would be an existing subcat, plus there's probably significant undercounting. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 16:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''', we already have {{tl|SouthAm-singer-stub}} which overlaps. [[User:Monni1995|Monni]] 19:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
MONGO "inquiring" about my true identity: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Striver&oldid=55281577#Mongo_threatened_me]
**Oh, I'd missed that, sorry. But that's a) an upmerged template, that doesn't seem to have immediate prospects of categorical viability with that scope, b) at a level that doesn't correspond to any permcat, and c) is at the ''third'' level of the UN geoscheme: which indicates to me that it's not the right way of tagging such articles, in any respect. The question remains, do we want to follow the UN geoscheme, or not? (At least in cultural and human geography matters: if this were a geological type, that'd be a different matter.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
*** {{tl|SouthAm-singer-stub}} does have ~50 incoming links, so taking count that not all country-specific permanent categories have been sorted yet, there is chance that remaining ~10 will come eventually. [[User:Monni1995|Monni]] 05:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
===Arena Football===
Can someone de-admin MONGO, he is really ''not'' a productive force. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 10:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if this counts as a proposal but, I would like to propose we do something with {{Tl|ArenaFootballLeague-stub}}. It was nominated for discussion a while back and was kept upmerged to {{Cl|American football stubs}}. Having looked at the what links here for the template and the discussion it appears that it is to be used on players. I propose this is upmerged to {{Cl|American football biography stubs}} or as it has over 30 articles and a wikiproject given its own category. I have to admit not knowing much about this sport so I don't know which would be best. If this needs posting elsewhere let me know and i will move it. [[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 15:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
*Own category is probably the best option. You could also create a separate -bio- template... [[User:Alai|Alai]] 15:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
===US-tv-prog subcats by decade===
:I disagree and have seen many instances where MONGO is productive. -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|'''Samir''']] <small>[[User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)|धर्म]]</small> 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
{{sfp top|create as revised}}
This has been lingering oversized for a while, and on the basis of categorisation, I see only one feasible axis to break it down further:
*{{cl|2000s United States television program stubs}} 193
*{{cl|1990s United States television program stubs}} 156
*{{cl|1980s United States television program stubs}} 104
*{{cl|1970s United States television program stubs}} 97
*{{cl|1960s United States television program stubs}} 69
*{{cl|1950s United States television program stubs}} 59
(Or alternatively "series" per the permcats, if that's a useful distinction.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 15:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
*Can we hold off a bit while I slog through and see how much re-sorting I can do? I think a lot of them can be re-sorted by genre, at which point maybe we can make genre-related sub-cats. Cheers, [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] <small><font color="green">[[User talk:Pegship| (tis herself)]]</font></small> 18:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
**That's fine with me, let us know when you know more... BTW, there might be another db dump soonish, so if people want to add genre-based permcats, that might also help. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 18:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
***I've dug through about half of the {{tl|US-tv-prog-stub}} articles and found many double-stubbed along with the appropriate genre. I think nearly everything in that category can be re-stubbed by genre. Can you do that voodoo that you do so well, and check to see which genres could use splitting? (since the toolserver is still out of date...) I'm finding a lot of non-fiction tv shows, particularly sports and cooking shows, which might be big enough to split out. Or maybe news shows. Thanks for any help you can give me. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] <small><font color="green">[[User talk:Pegship| (tis herself)]]</font></small> 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see where I've gone wrong: was crunching from the wrong parent; there are by-genre cats, just not US-specific ones. My bad for missing that in the first instance, sorry.
*{{cl|Comedy_television_series}} 151
*{{cl|Non-fiction_television_series}} 139
*{{cl|Sitcoms}} 83
*{{cl|Drama_television_series}} 83
*{{cl|News_television_series}} 55
*{{cl|Children's_television_series}} 51
*{{cl|Comedy_television_series_stubs}} 47
*{{cl|Science_fiction_television_series}} 33
*{{cl|Drama_television_series_stubs}} 30
*{{cl|American_children's_television_series}} 27
*{{cl|American_comedy_television_series}} 26
*{{cl|Horror_television_series}} 26
*{{cl|Television_talk_shows}} 23
*{{cl|Game_shows}} 23
*{{cl|The_Outer_Limits_episodes}} 23
So it looks like comedy, non-fiction, drama, news and children's are pretty much gimmes (factoring in some modest degree of undercounting in the latter two cases). Comedy is possibly big enough to consider subcats, though that's not urgent. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 01:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
**Here's how these are ordered:
:*{{cl|Comedy_television_series}} 151
:**{{cl|American_comedy_television_series}} 26
:**{{cl|Comedy_television_series_stubs}} 47
:**{{cl|Sitcoms}} 83
:*{{cl|Non-fiction_television_series}} 139
:**{{cl|News_television_series}} 55
:**{{cl|Television_talk_shows}} 23
:**{{cl|Game_shows}} 23
:*{{cl|Drama_television_series}} 83
:**{{cl|Drama_television_series_stubs}} 30
:*{{cl|Children's_television_series}} 51
:**{{cl|American_children's_television_series}} 27
:*{{cl|Science_fiction_television_series}} 33
:*{{cl|Horror_television_series}} 26
:...so I propose a {{tl|news-tv-prog-stub}} and maybe a {{tl|sport-tv-prog-stub}}, although I don't see that in the list. Maybe upmerged {{tl|talk-tv-prog-stub}} and {{tl|game-tv-prog-stub}}. Any takers? [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] <small><font color="green">[[User talk:Pegship| (tis herself)]]</font></small> 05:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
::Me, for one. Sports isn't on the list because I once ''again'' didn't pick a general enough route: there's 46 under {{cl|sports television}}, though, so that sounds very plausible, too. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 13:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
===Split of {{Cl|American football stubs}}===
:Mongo seems to be a good and civil editor and admin on non-9/11 related articles. However, on anything 9/11 he becomes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=prev&oldid=52461381 obnoxious]. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=prev&oldid=51502381 This one] is actually quite funny, but I think he ment to be insulting) [[User:Seabhcan|Seabhcán]] 11:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
{{sfp create}}
Over 600 articles and the entire first page is either drafts or seasons, don't think that we have enough for a drft-stub but certainly we have enough for a season stub I propose {{Cl|American football season stubs}} with the template called {{Tl|AmericanFootball-season-stub}} or {{Tl|Amfoot-season-stub}}. [[User:Waacstats|Waacstats]] 14:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:After a recount we do have enough for a {{Cl|American football draft stubs}} again fed by which ever is deemed more acceptable {{Tl|AmericanFootball-draft-stub}} or {{Tl|Amfoot-draft-stub}}
::The main template in the parent is {{tl|Americanfootball-stub}}, so these should follow suit. Strong support on the first, and milder support on the second, BTW. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 01:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
==={{tl|Producer-stub}}===
:I certainly wouldn't deadmin him as he is a capable and I am sure well-intentioned editor. Some of his work on the national Parks articles is worthwhile. He has erred though in his attitude towards certain users on the 9/11 related articles and should refrain from editing them for a period (a month or two?) to help him get a sense of perspective.
{{sfp other}}
I think there needs to be a producer stub, because right now I've noticed that a lot of producers are just listed under stub. I think it would make things a little more organized, if they had their own stub category. Also, from there you can get more specific, like tv-producer-stub or movie-producer-stub. It's just an idea. Anyone have any thoughts on this? [[User:Kc12286|kc12286]] 01:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''comment''' - We've already got {{tl|film-producer-stub}}, and {{tl|music-producer-stub}}.[[User:Crystallina|Crystallina]] 03:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
: I looked for it. I guess it's listed under films. Well in that case, maye adding a tv-producer-stub would be helpful. [[User:Kc12286|kc12286]] 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
*We have just created {{tl|US-tv-producer-stub}}; are there any other nationalities big enough to split? Or enough among the other nationalities to merit a general {{tl|tv-producer-stub}}? [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] <small><font color="green">[[User talk:Pegship| (tis herself)]]</font></small> 17:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
==={{tl|Ancient-Euro-bio-stub}}===
:I find comments like:
{{sfp create}}
*"That's not a POV..that's a mission statement."
This one may need a little brainstorming from the WP:WSS regulars. During discussion with [[User: Apcbg]] about the unproposed discovery Ancient-Thrace-bio-stub, it occurred to me that a stub covering biographies of ancient Europeans not covered by the Roman or Greek stub types would probably be very useful and would almost certainly reach 60 stubs, with Thracians, Spartans, Celts, Teutons and the like. IIRC we recently had a similar call for an Etruscan-bio-stub, which this would also cover. It does face a couple of problems, however: defining "Ancient" and defining "Europe". Personally, I'd define Ancient as being the same as BC and would be lenient on Europe to include Phoenicians, Trojans and Carthaginians - none of whom could accuately be described as European. And if that was to be the coverage, it might need a better name ("Classical-bio-stub"?). Any thoughts? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 05:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
*"That is a bunch of crap"
*"I am also about ready to start blocking folks for disruption of the talk pages."
*"In my opinion, we are arguing with trolls mostly"
*"I will not assume any good faith when POV pushers try to add nonsense to the articles" (all collated on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MONGO#Talk:7_World_Trade_Center) very disturbing. [[WP:AGF]] is not to be employed just when you feel like it, it is an absolute rule.
:::[[Image:Zlatna maska teres-2.jpg|44px|]]That would be a satisfactory solution I believe. Just one suggestion: Could we please illustrate the new Ancient-Euro-bio-stub with the picture used in Ancient-Thrace-bio-stub? It's the golden mask of a Thracian king, and reputedly the Thracians upheld the earliest cultural tradition in Europe (including the abovementioned 'peri-European' peoples too); as you possibly know the world's oldest gold (dated 46th century BC) was found near [[Varna Necropolis|Varna]]. [[User:Apcbg|Apcbg]] 12:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I also find his reply to Hyperbole above ('Eventually the response (after incessant badgering about the same old tired nonsense)..."You must be an idiot!" ') deeply disturbing. As someone who threatens blocks quite frequently for perceived breaches of wiki policy, and as an admin, he should know that [[WP:NPA]] is not just for when you feel like it, it is for all the time.
::Sounds reasonable - the only other thoughts I had were the statue of Boudicca in Westminster, UK, and the statue of the dying Gaul - neither of which would be easily recognisable at that size. Discussing the stub icon's a bit like putting the cart before the horse, though - I'd prefer to get the actual name and scope of the thing sorted out first! [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 23:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Take some time out, work on other parts of Wikipedia, and you may rediscover that Wiki can be fun. At the moment you are spoiling it for yourself and for others because of the misguided "mission statement" you have taken on. Nobody can [[WP:OWN|own]] any part of Wikipedia and you may need to rediscover that too.
--[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 13:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm not an expert on stub-template names, but 'Ancient-Europe-bio-stub' seems better to me; with 'Ancient-Euro-bio-stub' one would expect to see an 'Ancient-Dollar-bio-stub' too :-) [[User:Apcbg|Apcbg]] 08:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Just for perspective, he blocked me once for this comment:
::Heh. "Euro-" is used as a standard for Europe-related stub templates. Perhaps it should be the full word, but it would require a hell of a lot of work to get them all changed over to Europe. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 01:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:''Not if you are working in the [[Homeland Security]] and happen to be named [[User:MONGO]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Striver&oldid=55281577#Blocked_for_24_hours]
:::Just fine with me. [[User:Apcbg|Apcbg]] 05:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:::'''Support''' per nom and the image of the Thracian gold mask is fine. I presume the category name (when we have 60 stubs) will be {{cl|Ancient European people stubs}} ? [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] <sup>[[User_talk:Valentinian|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|C]]</sup> 07:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::::In the meantime, the 'Ancient-Thrace-bio-stub' seems to have been transformed by [[User:Amalas]] into 'Ancient-Thrace-stub' (displaying however the former text "Ancient Thracians biographical article"); subject closed or what? [[User:Apcbg|Apcbg]] 19:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
===Anime and manga -- do-over===
I find the above enumerated statments as much more severe than the one MONGO blocked me for. Do we have a double standard? I cant use sarkasm, but MONGO can call people "idiots"? Thats how i fell it is. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 13:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
We've been around this one before, but hopefully we might get a bit more traction this time. Parent is of course enormous. I hope I'm on solid ground with at least the first one, as it was [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_14#Mangaka_stub|already suggested]] at the corresponding WPJ (at which I'm about to drop a note about this). I wonder if a still broader {{cl|anime and manga biography stubs}} would also be handy.
#{{cl|Manga artist stubs}} 186
#{{cl|Anime OVA stubs}} 139
#{{cl|Anime film stubs}} 97
#{{cl|Science fiction anime stubs}} 144
#{{cl|Shōjo stubs}} 108
#{{cl|Mecha anime stubs}} 76
#{{cl|Fantasy anime stubs}} 71
As to the others, I'm easy either way on whether it makes more sense to split by medium, or by genre.
*'''Support''' {{cl|Manga artist stubs}}, '''Oppose''' all other as it give [[WP:ANIME]] too many stubs to juggle. Genre stubs are a particularly bad idea as most anime and manga belong to multiple genres and choosing the best stub won't be easy and a constant source of greif. --'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]''' ([[User talk:TheFarix|Talk]]) 19:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the objection to Mongo is that he is enforcing the rules: Cite reliable sources; No undue weight; No original research; No link spam. These persistent efforts to lard the 9/11 articles with junk science and conspiracist nonsense have long since passed the point of being disruptive. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 13:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:Agree with Tom, and fully support MONGO here. [[User:NoSeptember|<font color = "green">'''NoSeptember'''</font>]] [[User talk:NoSeptember|<font color = "green"><sup>''talk''</sup></font>]] 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
*I numbered them for easier reference. I support all but {{cl|Shōjo stubs}}. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">Talk</font>]] <font color="darkblue">to</font> [[WP:JA|Nihon]][[WP:MOS-JA|<font color="darkgreen">joe</font>]]</small></sup> 19:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
:If this is his aim, he can try to do it without insults. [[User:Seabhcan|Seabhcán]] 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, Seabhcan...no insults...something you seem to relish yourself in edit summaries...[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=prev&oldid=52292395], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=prev&oldid=51428328], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=prev&oldid=50871179], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seabhcan&diff=prev&oldid=50934755], replacing insults made by a troll in discussion pages [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=prev&oldid=50937276], moving the article that you can't force your wide-eyed nonsense into off to your own userspace solely to create your POV version[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Seabhcan/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=prev&oldid=50714901].--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 16:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:Which bits of those comments offended you, Mongo? I didn't call you an 'idiot' or a 'fool' as you did me, I said (with a touch of scarcasism), that you were a 'philosopher'. Also, your removal of that IP users comments was uncalled for. He was making a comment and you removed it four times and then protected the talk page. There was nothing trollish about his comment. However, your censorship of the talk page certainly bordered on trolling. [[User:Seabhcan|Seabhcán]] 18:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::Yup. Start following wikipedia policies yourself ([[WP:AGF]], [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:CIVIL]]) and you will find that people will take you much more seriously when you try and enforce them on others. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 13:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:::The 9/11 articles are akin to the problems we have with our biographies...they are under attack by POV pushers of nonsense such as yourself and this nonsense puts Wikipedias reputation for reliable witness and neutrality at risk. There is no good faith to be assumed when editors such as yourself fight for adding junk science to article space...3,000 people died that day and it directly impacted the lives of at least 100,000 more whose had lost their loved ones and friends...do you realize how many potential lawsuits I and others may have saved Wikipedia from if those articles are filled with insultingly inaccurate junk science that claims that the U.S. Government or others blew up the buildings or that they sanctioned the attacks to justify a war in Iraq? Tis a pity so many seem to wish to use Wikipedia resources to push such a horrible bunch of lies into our articles. Yes, I should be blocking others for disruption much more often...block all time wasting trolls.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 16:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::::That's just the reason that [[People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report]] was deleted. MONGO is simply enforcing the rules, [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:CIVIL]], [[WP:RS]], [[WP:V]], [[WP:NPOV#Undue weight]], and many other [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]. Wikipedia is a not a free-for-all. If you want to post stuff on the web, without these rules, a [[Blog]] would be suitable. -[[User:Kmf164|Kmf164]] (<small>[[User_talk:Kmf164|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kmf164|contribs]]</small>) 16:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::Agree entirely. (As he has done many times before) MONGO is clearly doing a very good job in ensuring that this article is well referenced and includes neutral facts. He has done nothing inappropriate whatoever. However, admins are always held to high standards in their behaviour, and I do suggest that MONGO drop the tone just a notch. Really no reason to call any group of people idiots for any reason. Thanks -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|'''Samir''']] <small>[[User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)|धर्म]]</small> 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::: And I disagree entirely, except with your last point. There is no call for abuse; I have never treated this user with anything other than courtesy, in spite of being called (just above) a "POV pusher of nonsense" and a "time wasting troll", among other things. In spite of all these deeply inappropriate behaviours, Mongo, I do still believe you are acting in good faith. But I think a wee rest from this "mission" you have set yourself will do you, the rest of us, and even the articles we are debating, immense good. I am ready to receive your apology for the insults whenever you are ready to give it, and until then, I see no benefit in any continued discussion of your behaviour, either here or on any other page. Sincere best wishes until then --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 18:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I see no reason to rest...whatever do you mean? I owe you something...what is that exactly...I should apologize to you when your efforts are to add nonsense to our articles, thereby putting Wikipedia's reputation at risk...it is you that should go elsewhere, and I recommend as others have perhaps a blog will do. I offer no apology and I offer no respite and intend to insult you and others that intend to insult and compromise the integrity of these articles with your nonsense.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 18:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tom, MONGO is fully justified in his actions. --[[User:Rogerd|rogerd]] 21:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' {{cl|Manga artist stubs}}, as most manga artist articles are stubs. Glad you took it up, I never got around [[User:Ninja_neko/Mangaka_stubs|listing all eligible articles]] (there are so many!). Not sure about the other cats though, as this would mean you could apply multiple stub cats on one article (a mecha-sci fi-fantasy OVA for instance), it could get confusing. [[User:Ninja neko|Ninja neko]] 08:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
* Many of the 9/11 articles are under siege by people promoting conspiracy theories who have little regard for the standards that the Wikipedia should maintain. There's been months of edit-warring over the insertion that Larry Silverstein conspired with government and non-government entities to destroy 7 World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 by a controlled-demolition. How many times does one have to delete that before one calls the inserter an ''time wasting troll''? It is a provocation. [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 03:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
**I imagine we'd (at most) want to do either the form/medium axis, or the genre axis, but not both. Since the "series" are in theory already split (that is, the type exists, but isn't significantly sorted to), and since it would presumably lead to less overlap, maybe the former makes more sense. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 12:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' {{cl|Manga artist stubs}}, As for OVA and films, I have opposed a stub type for anime-series before because its purpose is far outweighed by the maintenance needed to separate them from other anime/mange stub types. Basically all of what Farix said I agree with. --[[User:Squilibob|Squilibob]] 07:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
::Right, the POV pushing on that page (and others) is relentless. Mongo has been tireless resisting attempts by a very small handful of editors to sidestep editorial rules. They have us going round and round in circles making us repeat the same valid objections time after time...at some point they need to stop. I'm sure they'd love Mongo to step away from that page but it's to all our benefit that he hasn't. [[User:Rx StrangeLove|Rx StrangeLove]] 03:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
**Given the ever-increasing size of the parent stub type, can someone explain to me exactly what "maintaining" of this the anime WPJ is doing at present? From a stub-sorting point of view, it's not acceptable for this just to grow endlessly, and I can't believe it's very useful for anyone else (supposedly) working on these, either, at least as regards the chances of these articles ever being "unstubbed". Is the project going to agree to ''any'' way of sorting the remainder of these? (Note "agree to", not "actually do".) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 13:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a waste of time. This user just seems to be angry at Mongo responsibly using his admin powers to stop his continous violations of NPOV and refusal to accept the community's consensus. Should Mongo be more careful about his tone, yes, but is he doing what any other responsible admin would do, clearly yes. This is, in my opinion, a violation of [[WP:POINT]]. The purpose is to create this, get users who agree with 9/11 truth to post in it and smear Mongo, with the purpose of stoping him from doing his responsiblities as an admin.--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 04:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::*'''Comment''': There are [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Anime and manga articles by quality statistics|1847 stub]] anime and manga articles. If you split OVAs and films off then that would removed only 236 of the 1847 still leaving over 1600 stubs left in the one category, ''but'' some OVAs have film adaptions and vice versa. And science fiction/mecha/fantasy would have even more overlap. --[[User:Squilibob|Squilibob]] 05:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:::*Well, for one thing you're using the wrong numbers: this has nothing to do with the "stub class articles", which would remain as-is. The overlap is actually pretty small: around 25 of the above. There's about 1200 A&M-stubs per se, and sorting 200 of them would be an excellent first step, in my book. Also bear in mind that these numbers are on the basis of existing categorisation, and are probably considerable underestimates (I'll compile a list of the A&M stubs with no other category, in the vague hopes someone might actually categorise them). If someone else has a better idea as to how to split these up I'm all ears, but if the project is just going to say "no" to everything... [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:By 'this user', do you mean [[User:Hyperbole|Hyperbole]], [[User:Seabhcan|Seabhcán]], [[User:Striver|Striver]] or me? I assure you the only point '''I''' am trying to make is that [[User:MONGO]] needs to "be more careful about his tone", as you put it, bigstyle. Nobody that I have seen on the WTC7 page has tried to sidestep editorial rules, other than arguably Mongo himself when he threatened to "start blocking folks for disruption of the talk pages" in (presumably) an effort to stifle the normal debate on content which typifies Wikipedia talk pages. As a good-faith editor who has always sought compromise and consensus in my dealings with him, I strongly object to being called names or threatened. A gentle reminder to the user about [[WP:CIVIL]] may be all that is needed, though, looking at the uncompromising stance he seems to be taking in some of his replies above, this optimism may be misplaced. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 10:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
*Alternatively, if the films and OVAs are especially apt to overlap (or not an especially interesting distinction for editorial purposes in the first place), we could have a combined "film and OVA stubs" category, which would at least serve to separate them out from wholly different media. Would that be a more attractive option? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 17:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::What is there to compromise about? In other words, you want to cite as evidence information gleemed from unreliable websites and books that are not scientific. What compromise is there to be had...policy clearly disallows this.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 10:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
**We don't have any film stub types that use release format (i.e. direct to video); I think just {{tl|anime-film-stub}} would work for our current purposes -- if necessary. There are only 2 pages of {{cl|Anime films}}. Any OVA can be given the category of {{cl|Direct-to-video films}} as well. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] <small><font color="green">[[User talk:Pegship| (tis herself)]]</font></small> 19:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
***I've gone ahead and done this, with an initial bot-population on as conservative a basis as I could manage. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 04:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
==={{cl|fungal plant disease stubs}}, and such like===
* I just picked up the following: "Sure...I guess if the poll demonstrated that an overwhelming number of person did not think there was a conspiracy, you wouldn't even be bothering to link it...who do you think you're fooling?--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 19:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:7_World_Trade_Center&action=edit§ion=14]. I had hoped that this user had improved his conduct; this reply (and to be honest, some of the ones above), make that belief harder to sustain. Clear breach of [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:CIVIL]], again. Could somebody 'have a word' with him, please, so that everyone involved can get on with trying to improve the article? Thanks in advance --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 04:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
{{cl|Plant disease stubs}} is now huge: over 1300. The only trouble with a "fungal" subtype is that it look like ''it'' would be huge, too: hundreds of articles were double-stubbed with fungus-stub at the time of the last db dump a week ago, and there's been a lot more created since. Broadly speaking I'd imagine we'd want to split further by either taxonomy of the infective agent, or else by taxonomy of effected species. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
::I'll have a word with him.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 05:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:I don't know what the solution is - perhaps I should stop creating all these stubs, and in fact, I'm pretty well done - I wanted to create stubs for all of the pathogens listed in the various disease lists. However, the issue is not really just restricted to 'stubs'. The 'Plant pathogens and diseases' category is now also very large. How could it be better organized? I noticed that the fungi category includes subcategories such as Ascomycetes and Basidiomycetes. Most of the plant disease stubs are for Ascomycetes, however, very few have so far been added to this category. If they were, the category would also be large. There also some subcategories for specific genera. I don't know if we want to start creating genera specific stubs (e.g Fusarium pathogen stub, ...) or crop specific stubs (Canola disease stub ..), although the taxonomic approach seems to be one that has been used for the organization of plant species - although I'm not sure if this is also reflected in the plant stubs.[[User:Somanypeople|Somanypeople]] 01:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
== [[User:Phaedriel]] ==
Phaedriel is being nailed by a stalker at the moment. Those of you who are on the mailing list know about it. Anything that anyone can do to help would be appreciated. Right now, more than anything else, Phaedriel needs our support and I hope people will give it to her. Her userpage has information on what's been going on. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(meow)]]</sup> 13:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:Could I just add that she's asked to be left alone in quiet contemplation. Let's try to respect that. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::But she also posted about the stalking on her user page, so she is not trying to keep it secret. [[User:NoSeptember|<font color = "green">'''NoSeptember'''</font>]] [[User talk:NoSeptember|<font color = "green"><sup>''talk''</sup></font>]] 14:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:::We need to find ways of protecting, defending and supporting users who come under the kind of psychological warfare attacks she was subject to. I suppose one thing we could do is encourage users who need anonymity to preserve it from their first edit and choice of user name. A beginning user has little reason to anticipate the day they may be required to deal with difficult people who will exploit personal information. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 14:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Absolutely agree, although the last time I saw [[Wikipedia talk:Admins willing to make difficult blocks#Privacy|this topic]] discussed, it got limited response. [[User:NoSeptember|<font color = "green">'''NoSeptember'''</font>]] [[User talk:NoSeptember|<font color = "green"><sup>''talk''</sup></font>]] 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I wanted to add language in the registration dialog discouraging people from disclosing their actual identities (well, at least pointing out that several people have received real-life harrassment due to activities on wikipedia), but couldn't convince anyone else: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Username&diff=29857426&oldid=29784224] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Signupend&diff=30563430&oldid=29871281] were the strongest statements I could get in. [[User:Demi|Demi]] <sup>[[User_talk:Demi|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Demi|C]]</sub> 18:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::That's really out of our brief. Perhaps the best solution would be for you to find whatever WikiProject is most involved with this subject and work out how to subdivide the main parent category - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants]], or [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology]] perhaps, or maybe [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi]] or even [[[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology]]. That would make our job easier, too, since we can then divide the stub cats along whatever line the permcats are divided. If the stub category isn't going to grow much larger any time soon (and you did say you've more or less finished what you're doing), then we can hold off any split for a short while, at least. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 01:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It's important that those that wish to remain anonymous do so by not reveiling their real name, their place of work, where they hang out, etc. I would be cautious about telling people to not post personal information by ensuring the wording doesn't freak people out and cause them to not contribute. I don't think she is under any potentiality of losing her job...just her privacy perhaps.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::: Well as a member of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi]] I have been adding fungal plant diseases to their coverage but its quiet a small wikiproject. The majority of plant diseases are fungal, so the creation of a fungal plant disease catergory would, your correct, be huge. It may be best to divivde them by their hosts then. I suggest cereal disease stub, tree disease stub ect and I also suggest a general plant virus stub due to the number of viral family stub articles where all the members of that family are plant pathogens. Viruses also have a very large host range so it'd be harder to classify them that way. [[User:Million Moments|Million_Moments]] 11:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
:I think we can do a few things, or Wikimedia could, to help prevent one type of stalking (threats to work). We should probably get the Foundation to have a couple of letters on hand that explain to employers that the named person is a volunteer and might well be harrassed for working for the good of mankind. That would help in ''that'' part of things (and it can be written in a neutral manner that doesn't take a position on a particular argument). Additionally, though, we need to be able to generate multiple calls to authorities to indicate the severity of a personal stalking. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::Agreed. I can see no reason the foundation cannot lend a hand in the manner you have described.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 03:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::On permcats (though as G. says, this isn't strictly on-topic for this page, but what the hey) I'd image one would want categorisation by both organism and by host. Say, cat:<taxon> or cat:<taxon> plant diseases, plus something along the lines of cat:diseases of <taxon> (or cat:<taxon> diseases). Whether one wants "intersection categories" between the two is a judgement call. Once those are in place, then it becomes just a matter of which of the two (or which combination) is the most useful for editors expanding them. BTW, notice also [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/June_2007#fungus_subtypes|this proposal]] to split up the fungi per se, which presumably will overlap a great deal with this. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 14:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
== [[User:Guillen]] ([[User talk:Guillen|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Guillen|contribs]]) ==
===Split of {{tl|mil-stub}}===
This user has begun to try my patience.
{{sfp top|create by continent}}
Mil-stub is 5 pages and needs a split. {{tl|Asia-mil-stub}}, {{tl|Africa-mil-stub}}, {{tl|SouthAm-mil-stub}} would be a good beginning and could also be the parent cat's to the existing x-mil-stub. Also, a {{tl|country-mil-stub}} would be useful.--[[User:Thomas.macmillan|Thomas.macmillan]] 21:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the continent splits (plus, if deemed useful, simular for Oceania, CentralAm, Caribbean and MEast). Not so sure about the country-mil-stub, though - what would that be used for? If simply "Military of Foo"-type articles, wouldn't they be better simply given their respective continental-mil-stub? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 23:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
==={{tl|pharmacology-stub}} subtypes===
He has twice vandalized my user page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BigDT&diff=prev&oldid=56124943], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BigDT&diff=prev&oldid=56013028], accusing me of being some kind of Catholic anti-evangelical bigot. (For the record, I am not Catholic - I am a conservative, evangelical, born again, Bible-believing, whatever term you want to use - they all mean the same to me, Christian.)
{{sfp create}}
Bigger than ever, but categorisation seems to have improved, so the following all look to be plausible now:
He has three times completely replaced without comment a well-written [[Spiritual warfare]] article with a POV/original research piece. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spiritual_warfare&diff=56127088&oldid=56022632], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spiritual_warfare&diff=56009069&oldid=55888698], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spiritual_warfare&diff=55421898&oldid=54698032]. See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual warfare|afd]] discussion of his version.
*{{cl|monoclonal antibody stubs}} 153
*{{cl|antimicrobial stubs}} 119
He also left an inflammatory message on [[User:Jim Henry]]'s talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jim_Henry&diff=prev&oldid=56008088].
*{{cl|analgesic stubs}} 74
*{{cl|sedative stubs}} 70
He has posted material on [[Plymouth Brethren]] several times that is block copied from http://www.brethrenonline.org/faqs/PBHIST.HTM - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plymouth_Brethren&diff=56127658&oldid=56029180], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plymouth_Brethren&diff=55772579&oldid=55307224]
*{{cl|anticonvulsant stubs}} 66
*{{cl|antihypertensive agent stubs}} 62
I, and others have left several messages to [[User talk:Guillen]] attempting to explain the problems with his edits, but there has been no acknowledgement of them other than calling us evil Catholics.
:'''Support'''. Monoclonal antibodies in particular would benefit from subsorting. I presume {{tl|antimicrobial-stub}} would apply to antifungals, antiparasitics etc. [[User:Fvasconcellos|Fvasconcellos]]<small> ([[User talk:Fvasconcellos|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Fvasconcellos|c]])</small> 21:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
{{sfd bottom}}
If you look at [[Special:Contributions/Guillen|his contributions]], there seems to be something of a language barrier. Many of his contributions are in more or less broken English and he seems to see a strong bias where there is none. [[WP:AGF|Assuming good faith]], is it possible for someone who speaks his native language (Swedish?) to engage him on his talk page about these issues?
One other diff - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FSankta_lusse&diff=56126127&oldid=56028072] - to an AFD of an article he wrote - tries my ability to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]].
[[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 15:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
*content dispute?--[[User:205.188.116.65|205.188.116.65]] 15:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
**Vandalism of a user page, repeatedly posting copyvio material, replacing articles with personal essays, and personal attacks go beyond a content dispute [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 15:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
**I have reverted what I viewed as a personal attack placed on [[User:BigDT]]'s userpage by this user. I also note that every edit he has made has been marked as minor. The user hasn't made an edits since the three talk messages I left earlier today, including instructions on both of those points. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
== [[User:THE KING]] and OR in Monash University dorm articles ==
{{user|THE KING}} has been edit warring (albeit slowly) over the inclusion of what I consider blatant POV OR to articles about dorms and related topics to [[Monash University]]. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Farrer_Hall&diff=prev&oldid=56163828 this] for his most recent attempt to restore this content, which at best describes without any hope of verification (or encyclopedic worth) what the social atmosphere of the dorm is as far as drinking and bar hopping, and at worst makes such claims as the prevalence of homosexuality on certain dorm floors, and the masturbation habits of certain students. See also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Passion_Pop&diff=prev&oldid=55096756] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richardson_Hall&diff=prev&oldid=25031823] for a couple more examples. THE KING has complained about this on my talk page, taking it as a personal vendetta, so I'm posting here because of that and the fact that I'm rather sick of policing these stupid dorm articles (see links at [[Monash Residential Services]]). [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 17:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
*I think what postdlf is trying to get at here is that he thinks it's acceptable to just flollok about the place reverting peoples edits because they contain something that he doesn't like. If you dont like it, remove the offending statement - don't revert the entire edit, which i may have worked on for some time to get rid of pov and OR material. eg [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Passion_Pop&diff=55105035&oldid=55097387], why did he have to de-wikify the links too? In my opinion, postdlf is just a warmonger who cares more about noticeboards like this and pinning people up on them than he does about the integrity of the encyclopedia, and i said as much on his talk page. Yes, if you remove the entire edit i do take it as a personal vendetta and the only verdict is vengeance, a vendetta held as a votive - not in vain - for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. [[User:THE KING|THE KING]] 17:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
*Or we could save ourselves a lot of trouble and just delete the entire series of articles on "Monash University residence halls" as non-notable? I don't see any claims to notability in any of the six articles, and as long as they exist, they're going to attract nonsense like this. [[User:Demiurge|Demiurge]] 18:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
**I'm fine with that option as well. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 18:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
*Well we all know they wouldn't pass AFD. Wikipedia's politics have swung to deletionism far too much over the last year for that to happen. I guess it just comes down to whether you are mature enough to let them be? Or do you want to take the easy road, the one which you know will be worst for wikipedia? [[User:THE KING|THE KING]] 18:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
*** I've taken the liberty: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monash Residential Services]]. [[User:Demiurge|Demiurge]] 19:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
***You have demonstrated your immaturity as expected. [[User:THE KING|THE KING]] 19:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
****Strange how placing such information in Wikipedia is mature, but removing it is not. [[User:Morven|Matthew Brown (Morven)]] ([[User talk:Morven|T]]:[[Special:Contributions/Morven|C]]) 19:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
*****Please dont enter into this discussion without the appropriate context, morv. Removing this info is not the cause of my concern. Dont make me add you to my [[User:THE KING|List of people who need a kick in the arse for taking the easy road]]. [[User:THE KING|THE KING]] 19:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
******I'm reverting your edits because the "faggot" reference on your user page is a personal attack, and in my opinion so is your "List of people who need a kick in the arse for taking the easy road" because it's reporting what you see as editor deficiencies in an aggressive and confrontational manner. However, that said I've made my point I won't be reverting any more. Please have a think about it. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 19:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Please note that THE KING's User page specifically attacks the principles of NOR and Verifiability. I'm sorry, but those are official Wikipedia policies, and you'll have to get them changed before you try avoiding them. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 23:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The AFD is taking care of the dorm articles, but he's also continued to insert an OR/student vanity paragraph into [[Passion Pop]], with such beautifully encyclopedic statements as this: "Many prefer this drink over beer, and since it is as cheap if not cheaper, it often finds its way into low class [[University]] functions, either straight or in a punch."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Passion_Pop&diff=prev&oldid=56166060] I've already removed it (again), but I also think the rest of that article needs to be pruned for OR beyond that obvious paragraph. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 00:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia Review]] needs unprotection ==
Please see the appropriate talk page. [[Censorship]] of wikipedia's opponents does three things:
*Make us look like a cult
*Make us look like we support censorship of pov's that we dont like
*make it difficult to read an npov view of them.
So can an admin please de-salt the earth there. Cheers. [[User:THE KING|THE KING]] 19:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:Sorry, not gonna happen. Most, if not all, admins will agree that this article should not be restored. Just try asking a few. [[User:69.117.12.239]] 19:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "censoring" "Wikipedia's opponents" and everything to do with established notability guidelines. We have articles on world rulers and great scientific inventions. We don't have articles on random forum communities with a few dozen members. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 19:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:I agree. [[WP:WEB]] is clear on this. --[[User:Deskana|Lord Deskana]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Deskana|Dark Lord of the Sith]]</sup> 19:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::I am a proud member of wikipedia. What makes me proudest about it however, is that all major points of view are taken into account. Thats why we can say that we work towards NPOV. I don't want to have to stop saying that. This is not a threat, just something for you to think about. Also, considering the obviously sensitive nature of this request, i propose that we put it to a vote, since i think we can all agree that it's something that the admins would have a bias against. Thankyou in advance for your neutrality in dealing with this matter. [[User:THE KING|THE KING]] 19:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:::You seem to think this is a POV issue when it is not. POV only even comes into play once an issue is notable enough to warrant an article in an encyclopedia of general knowledge. You can try putting up our notability criteria for a vote of increased leniency, but I don't think you'll get very far. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 19:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::::POV is a phenomonen that affects not only individual articles but the encyclopedia as a whole, in my opinion. What do you think? [[User:THE KING|THE KING]] 19:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:::(after edit conflict) I think The King is correct to suggest that someone may oppose recreation of this article in view of the ill regard in which they hold the website (I imagine, though, that they [[WP:AGF|act in good faith]], believing our having an article apropos of WR to be deleterious vis-à-vis encyclopedic purposes), but, irrespective of motivation, those opposing de-salting and recreation are altogether correct with respect to [[WP:NOT]] and [[WP:NN]] (scilicet, [[WP:WEB]]); the site has an Alexa rank of 71,164 (though the rank appears to be increasing, and surely I'd be amenable to our reopening the discussion should the site reach, say, 30,000) and is not otherwise notable (mentions under [[Criticisms of Wikipedia]], about the encyclopedic nature of which I'm not certain, would be fine, I suppose). As encyclopedists, we must be disinterested, and we oughtn't to permit our affiliation with Wikipedia to affect our editing: for the same reasons that an article about [[Phil Sandifer]] should be (and likely will be) deleted, viz., that, were we not eminently familiar with the subject in view of our association with Wikipedia, we'd think the subject non-notable, so too oughtn't we to have a Wikipedia Review article. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 19:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think [[User:THE KING]] may have a point. Perhaps this article should be recreated. It would be the perfect place to document incidents such as [[Daniel Brandt]]'s blackmailing of Katefan0 to leave the wiki and the Phil Sandifer incident. Both incidents were precipitated by the atmosphere encouraged on that forum. I've always said they would be their own undoing. This would be the perfect opportunity to assist them in that endeavour.
But perhaps this all would be too self-referential. -- [[User:Malber|{{{2|Malber}}}]] ([[User talk:Malber|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Malber|contribs]]) 20:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It should redirect to [[Criticism of Wikipedia]]. Redirects are cheap. And fun. [[User:Grue|<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="#FFFFFF">''' Grue '''</font>]] 20:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The problem with redirect is that a person can quickly create a article to replace the redirect. The wikipedia review caused alot of damage already. No way I support an article on them. Thanks [[User:Jaranda|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Jaranda|<sup>wat's sup</sup>]] 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:Redirects can be protected too, you know. And by the way, do you think [[Hurricane Katrina]] should be deleted, because it dealt a lot of damage ;) [[User:Grue|<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="#FFFFFF">''' Grue '''</font>]] 20:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::Indeed. Refusing to support an article '''because''' you consider it notable... for having done significant damage. Novel concept. 'Wikipedia, where all the articles are about nice people.' :] --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBDunkerson]] 22:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::I think the notion of creating a protected redirect as suggested is a reasonable one. We have plenty of redirects that handle topics that do not rise to the notability level required for their own articles; in fact there is an entire class of them via the tag {{tl|R to list entry}}. There is the risk of attracting via this redirect POV-pushing and vandalism to the [[Criticism of Wikipedia]] article, but that is nothing unique or new. User:Ceyockey (<small>''[[User talk:Ceyockey|talk to me]]''</small>) 13:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This debate belongs on [[WP:DRV]]. Where everyone with any sense will say "[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Review|Legitimate AFD]], validly closed, no new evidence presented, keep deleted". Has something changed since we deleted the article? Have any decent broadsheets recently given it significant and wide-ranging coverage? Have any respected academics studied the social consequences of Wikipedia Review? No? *monocle* --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
== Tony Sidaway unilaterally cancels satanism userbox restoral discussion ==
Tony has unilaterally closed the deletion review of the Satanism userbox with the comment ''Closing this because such a template would obviously bring Wikipedia into disrepute.)''.
See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review&diff=56173898&oldid=56172292].
In my opinion this is an inappropriate use of admin powers and/or clerk powers; there are legitimate devout Satanists out there, and rejecting the presense of a userbox for them absent a policy which prevents all religious userboxes in template space is religious bigotry against a minority, tiny and kooky as it may be. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] 20:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:I'd fully support this decision if we also got rid of userboxes for other religions across the board. Otherwise, it would appear that we're singling out the poor Satanists. [[User:Alienus|Al]] 20:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:: '''Support''' I support your proposed solution of deleting all of them. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 20:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::Count me in as supporting this proposal as well. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 23:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::Alienus, I concur that we should get rid of ''all'' such userboxes under proposed T2. However, the failure to delete any one such template can always be used to prevent deletion of another. Conversely, the deletion of any one can be cited as a precedent to delete another. You can be assured of my support in deleting ''any'' userbox falling under T2, regardless of ideology. Nevertheless, I think you'd agree that ''if'' we must be discriminatory, this isn't a bad one to see off - Satanism is particularly controversial as religions go, and identification with it will give Wikipedia a bad reputation in a way that the major religions will not.[[User:Timothy Usher|Timothy Usher]] 20:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::This would be much easier if every single deletion was not followed by this kind of messy rigmarole at [[WP:DRV]]…we could simply wipe the lot but you can imagine the storm of protest which would ensue. To be quite frank, it strains the limits of [[WP:AGF]] to believe that absolutely everybody who says "why not just delete the lot" would actually support such a move if it occurred, and it is mostly anticipation of the backlash which keeps the mop in the bucket. HTH HAND —[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 20:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Strains the limits? Quote me: ''Delete the lot of them.''[[User:Timothy Usher|Timothy Usher]] 21:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
: I'm confident that this is best for Wikipedia. I don't think the goal of producing a high quality encyclopedia can be served by encouraging, though the provision of templates saying "I'm a satanist" and the like, the use of Wikipedia's website for social networking and coordination of work between adherents of satanism. It could only bring the whole enterprise into disrepute to permit such abuse. Therefore it's inappropriate to hold a DRV-style debate where traditionally the item is restored if a certain proportion of editors vote to restore it. We cannot make such a decision on the basis of votes. Perhaps a discussion on the talk page of the template might be appropriate, though I think it would require a very strong case to be made for this particular template. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 20:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::The flaw here is that you are unilaterally deciding for a small, generally despised, and yet legitimate religion, ''while simultaneously not intervening to delete other more popular religious userboxes''.
::Whether religious userboxes should uniformly be removed or not is a completely differnet question than whether removing simply the tiny helpless minority is a policy of discrimination that Wikipedia should put up with.
::If you want them to go, then apply that to all of them. I agree with the wider argument (not enough to actively initiate such a move, but in principle). Applying it to fringe religions one at a time but not the big ones is a grossly abusive manner of solving the problem, however.
::Either initiate a blanket removal of all such userboxes, or leave the little ones alone. In between is using your personal judgement as to the validity of particular religions to substitute for Wikipedia policy consensus, and it's not good WP policy for us to let you do that. The judgement that Satanism as a template brings disrepute, but Christianity or Islam or Buddhism don't, is obviously flawed and must be overturned. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] 20:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::I wholeheartedly agree with Tony Sidaway.
::Georgewilliamherbert wrote, "The judgement that Satanism as a template brings disrepute, but Christianity or Islam or Buddhism don't, is obviously flawed and must be overturned."
::You have ''got'' to be kidding. Say it's unfair, fine, but don't pretend you can't see the difference. Even if a Satanist yourself, surely you will acknowledge that your religion (rightly or wrongly) has a poor reputation among the general public.[[User:Timothy Usher|Timothy Usher]] 20:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:::I am not a Satanist, no. And Satanism is far from the only religion to have a poor reputation among elements of the general public, or of the general public as a whole. Anti-Islamic sentiment was rather high on Sept 12, 2001, for example, but that would have been a grossly illegitimate reason to nuke a Muslim userbox that day.
:::The logic that Tony is using generally (that we shouldn't have such userboxes as a class) is fine. The specific logic, that because a majority of people don't like one particular religion we can nuke its userbox, is clearly flawed. Unpopularity is as a general rule not a valid reason to delete wikipedia-Anything. In attacking Satanism's popularity to defend Tony, you completely miss the point.
:::[[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] 20:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Guess what? It doesn't matter if something has a good or bad reputation. First of all, "reputation" is regionally and culturally arbitrary (see [[Islam]]). Secondly, [[WP:NOT]] (#1.9 in case you're not familiar with that page). Your position only comes down to what ''you'' think of the topic. But even if you could take a worldwide poll to determine a topic's reputation, that ''still'' wouldn't make it unsuitable. To build an NPOV encyclopedia requires NPOV policies, and NPOV administration of those policies. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler]] [[User_talk:KeithTyler|¶]] <small>([[WP:AMA|AMA]])</small> 21:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
* This is ludicrous. Deleting an in-progress DRV just because you don't like it is inappropriate. It would be one thing if it were [[WP:SNOW]], but it was even money what was going to happen. (By the way, I voted or opined or whatever we call these things '''Keep Deleted''', but that doesn't mean that the process should be terminated.) Also, [[User:Improv]] deleted [[Template:User Christian]] despite the fact that it has been through eleventy billion TFDs and DRVs and been upheld every time. IMO, both of these actions are indefensible and should be refersed immediately. [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 20:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
'''Fully support''' tony sidaway. wikipedia does not need such template. Ideally, users shouldn't have the '''need''' to proclaim beliefs strongly on their userpages (remember? userpages are for wikiwork content), but if a user must do it, he can just write it so, it's the template what it's unneeded, has no point (since users can just write "I'm a satanist" on their pages, no censorshi issues either), and thus it was ok to get rid of it. Likewise with all political parties and religion userboxes. They are not good for wikipedia. -- <small> [[User talk:Drini|Drini]]</small> 20:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::Then nominate them all for deletion, don't just start with small, unpopular ones. And don't let Tony short-circuit legitimate policy discussions based on his judgement alone. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] 20:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It is all or nothing, but not selectively based on whatever arguments. If religeon ones are allowed, they are all allowed. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 20:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:If there is a policy to disallow religion-declaring userboxes, then it should be used uniformly. Deciding that Satanism, or any other specific religion, should be deleted is entirely partisan, which violates the spirit of [[WP:NPOV]] completely.
:If Satanism is disreptuable, where do we draw the line and who draws it? Should we go after the religions that proselytize door to door? How about the ones that support polygamy? How about just the ones that we consider heretical or evil? Is this ChristianWikiPedia? [[User:Alienus|Al]] 20:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:I just want to say that this AN/I is not supposed to be a vote on the template itself or its worth, but is a comment regarding the unilateral decision to skip such a vote. In this, I think Georgewilliamherbert is correct in saying there's no particular reason why process couldn't have been allowed to continue as it was already doing before Tony stepped in and decided it was pointless. I see no real reason to skip it except Tony saying that in his mind it is clear. That's great, Tony, but looking at the voting record makes it clear that it isn't an "obvious" answer, and the mixed response here makes it clear that there is some reason to discuss it. Rather than having a discussion-about-a-discussion, the original should just be restored and people with opinions about it should go there to discuss the merits or problems with the template. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::*Second proposed remedy here of restoring the DRV and let it run its course. As a secondary proposal, Tony should initiate a Miscellany for Deletion for all religious userboxes. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] 21:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Remarks like ''such a template would obviously bring Wikipedia into disrepute'' constitute an attack on the entire religion of [[satanism]]. It's ironic that the people who are against "inflammatory and offensive" userboxes use such divisive and inflammatory comments in their rhetoric. [[User:Grue|<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="#FFFFFF">''' Grue '''</font>]] 20:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
'''Support''' Sidaway. Out-of-line DRVs do not need to remain open or run their course. We're building an encyclopedia. Having this in the template namespace does not contribute to this goal. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">You Know Who</font>]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 20:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we should do away with DRV and let Tony decide the suitability of all WP content. I propose a poll. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler]] [[User_talk:KeithTyler|¶]] <small>([[WP:AMA|AMA]])</small> 20:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:: [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a democracy]] -- <small> [[User talk:Drini|Drini]]</small> 21:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
*I '''Support''' letting Tony handle all deletion reviews. Sounds like an excellent idea. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 20:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::I agree. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 21:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::Good idea.[[User:Timothy Usher|Timothy Usher]] 21:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::Yes. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 22:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:::after the last lot of damage the inclusionists did to the DRV process I think not.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 00:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Christians have killed a lot more people than Satanists, historically. I think the faster we speedy all ideological templates the better. Making any argument based on the popularity of the religion in question is wholly inappropriate. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 20:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to deleting all the religion userboxes, since Jimbo discourages their use. However, to say that we can't get rid of satanism because we have Christianity is not logical. It's most unlikely that "this user is a Christian" could harm the reputation of Wikipedia to the same extent as "this user is a satanist". Let us recall that while Jimbo seems to discourage all "this user is" boxes, and therefore can be said to disapprove of the "straight", "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual" ones, the only one where he actually intervened (forcefully) was the one that said "this user is a pedophile". It seems silly to claim that a controversial userbox does no more harm to the reputation of the project than an uncontroversial one. [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<b><font size="3">♫</font></b>]] 21:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict, so indenting)
::Pedophilia is, for good reason, illegal. Satanism is, for equally good reason, not. The idea that a Satanism userbox could somehow "harm the reputation of Wikipedia" is silly. Rather, you appear to be projecting your personal tastes on us. You are, of course, entitled to your beliefs. However, you are not entitled to force them on us.
::What truly harms the reputation of Wikipedia is the ''accurate'' perception that it is a haven for bigotry. I'm absolutely certain that if I nominated all the Christian userboxes on your user page for deletion, they would survive. What does that tell you about our genuine commitment to [[WP:NPOV]]? [[User:Alienus|Al]] 21:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Strictly from a legal standpoint, this is false. Pedophilia is, depending on the point of view, a paraphilia or a sexual preference, and is '''not''' illegal. In must global jurisdictions, however, '''acting''' on it '''is'''. <tt>[[User:RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">Radio</span>]][[Special:Contributions/RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">Kirk</span>]]</tt> <tt>[[User talk:RadioKirk|<span style="font-size: 9px; color: #161;">talk to me</span>]]</tt> 22:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:I understand Musical Linguist's point, and it's clear that Satanism is less "reputable" than Christianity (in the circles we care about), but that's not my point. I'm not making the "silly" claim of Ann's last sentence above. I am claiming that it's not our place to even enter the arena of saying "this belief is reputable, this other one isn't." Once you decide that about one belief, you have to start deciding it about others, at at some point, you find yourself making completely indefensible decisions. Better to just treat all beliefs equally, as something inappropriate for template space, like Jimbo said. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 21:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
How about we put "This user follows the cult of <Cyde/Tony Sideaway>" at {user satanist}. It'll go over great. --[[User:Avillia|<font color="#228B22">Avillia</font>]] [[User_talk:Avillia|<sup><font color="#228B22">(Avillia me!)</font></sup>]] 21:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:Avillia: How is this comment helpful? '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 22:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::How is this discussion helpful? We are once again dragging this whole mess into AN:I and we are continuing to set a record for most Wikidrama in a week. Can we just agree to shift to a complete neutral on TfDing established userboxes until someone makes a policy which gains consensus? --[[User:Avillia|<font color="#228B22">Avillia</font>]] [[User_talk:Avillia|<sup><font color="#228B22">(Avillia me!)</font></sup>]] 00:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
What's likely to harm the reputation of Wikipedia is not consistent, and is not based on reason or justice; It's based on popular perception. If anyone thinks ''This user is a Satanist'' will not negatively effect the reputation of Wikipedia, that person is out of touch with what most people think. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 21:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I give my thoughts in the form of a userbox:
{| border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"
|-
| style="width:350px; text-align: left; font-size: 8pt; color:black; font-family: Arial; " | {{subst:Userbox | border-c = {{{border-c|#999}}} | border-s = {{{border-width|{{{border-s|1}}}}}} | id-c = {{{logo-background|{{{1|{{{id-c|#DDD}}}}}}}}} | id-s = {{{logo-size|{{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}}}} | id-fc = {{{logo-color|{{{id-fc|black}}}}}} | info-c = {{{info-background|{{{2|{{{info-c|#EEE}}}}}}}}} | info-s = {{{info-size|{{{info-s|8}}}}}} | info-fc = {{{info-color|{{{info-fc|black}}}}}} | id = {{#switch:{{{logo|{{{3|[[Image:Face-sad.svg|45px]]}}}}}}
|{{{logo}}} = <nowiki>{{{logo}}}</nowiki>
|{{{3}}} = <nowiki>{{{3}}}</nowiki>
|[[Image:Face-sad.svg|45px]] = <nowiki>[[Image:Face-sad.svg|45px]]</nowiki>
|id}} | info = {{#switch:This user feels that [[Wikipedia:Process is Important|out of process]] [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletions]] subject to an administrator's whims rather than [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] damage Wikipedia more than any userbox ever could.
|This user feels that [[Wikipedia:Process is Important|out of process]] [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletions]] subject to an administrator's whims rather than [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] damage Wikipedia more than any userbox ever could. = <nowiki>This user feels that [[Wikipedia:Process is Important|out of process]] [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletions]] subject to an administrator's whims rather than [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] damage Wikipedia more than any userbox ever could.</nowiki>
|{{{4}}} = <nowiki>{{{4}}}</nowiki>
|<nowiki>''info''</nowiki>}} | float = {{{float|left}}} }}
| <div style="float:{{{float|left}}}; border:{{{border-width|{{{border-s|1}}}}}}px solid {{{border-color|{{{1|{{{border-c|{{{id-c|#999}}}}}}}}}}}}; margin:1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px; background:{{{info-background|{{{2|{{{info-c|#EEE}}}}}}}}};"
| style="width:45px; height:45px; background:{{{logo-background|{{{1|{{{id-c|#DDD}}}}}}}}}; text-align:center; font-size:{{{logo-size|{{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}}}}pt; color:{{{logo-color|{{{id-fc|black}}}}}};" | '''{{{logo|{{{3|[[Image:Face-sad.svg|45px]]}}}}}}'''
| style="font-size:{{{info-size|{{{info-s|8}}}}}}pt; padding:4pt; line-height:1.25em; color:{{{info-color|{{{info-fc|black}}}}}};" | This user feels that [[Wikipedia:Process is Important|out of process]] [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletions]] subject to an administrator's whims rather than [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] damage Wikipedia more than any userbox ever could.
|}</div>
|}
[[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 21:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
This closure was overturned by another admin. Can we all leave this alone here now? There are better places to debate whether userboxes should be deleted. And this page is unlikely to produce any stronger remedy than overturning the early closure. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:Second. Off to the T1/T2 debates now that it's been restored to normal WP process. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] 22:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Get rid of all userboxes that advocate or even identify a point of view. Incrementally, or all at once. There has been plenty of time for them to be userified (and I will happily undelete and userify on request any I judge not to be directly divisive) now. They need to go. '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 22:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:This point is now more-or-less moot, except that I would expect Tony to recuse himself from taking action on these particular userboxes. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The [[Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll|proposed policy]] just failed consensus and, thus, the war wages on. It's time to subst the userboxes to the users' spaces and, as for the templates, "wipe them out. '''All''' of them." (Well, excepting Babel, of course.) Let's put this damned thing to bed. <tt>[[User:RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">Radio</span>]][[Special:Contributions/RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">Kirk</span>]]</tt> <tt>[[User talk:RadioKirk|<span style="font-size: 9px; color: #161;">talk to me</span>]]</tt> 22:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
''The following comment was deleted as collateral damage in a revert - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=56217962&oldid=56217745] for original diff''
Tony seems to be EXTREMELY controversial. Applying the same logic, why do we not delete ''him''? I'm not suggesting that this be done; I'm just showing your reasoning applied to a different subject. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 22:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:The logic of the userbox deletionist logic would certainly suggest that as a first step toward a solution. I'm not in favor of it, either. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 00:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to look at the word "unilaterally" in this section title from all angles and I just don't see it. What I see is Tony having widespread support for his actions and yet, his closure was reverted. Pot, Kettle? Oh, and I '''support''' this closure and continuing to remove these from the template space. .:.[[User:Jareth|Jareth]].:. <sup>[[User_talk:Jareth|babelfish]]</sup> 23:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:Widespread support? So you will have no problem getting a consensus together to make this kind of action policy?[[User:Geni|Geni]] 00:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::Always the devil's advocate? I'm sure you're quite well aware of the fiasco that has been consensus making on userboxes given the flaring tempers, misunderstanding of discussion vs vote, etc. .:.[[User:Jareth|Jareth]].:. <sup>[[User_talk:Jareth|babelfish]]</sup> 00:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Which means that no position has widespread support. Thus it is not a good idea to claim it. Wikipedia's normal solution to a lack of consensus is inaction. For some reason people don't appear to be ready to accept that course this time. Makes life interesting though.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 02:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Or that piling on and favoring votes over discussion has become the latest fetish. So creating scads more userboxes is inaction? .:.[[User:Jareth|Jareth]].:. <sup>[[User_talk:Jareth|babelfish]]</sup> 02:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Latest?[[User:Geni|Geni]] 10:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Could I give you some more straw? You seem to be spreading it around rather thickly. .:.[[User:Jareth|Jareth]].:. <sup>[[User_talk:Jareth|babelfish]]</sup> 10:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::You seemed to indicate that useing voteing over disscussion is something new. It isn't in any case I prefer block voteing to admins trying to force issues. People trying to settle stuff by block voteing does tend to work out in the end, it also tends to involve less screaming.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 11:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Tony Sidaway's reasoning is flawed. If he thinks all religion boxes should be deleted, he should say so in his reasoning, rather than singling out Satanism. Otherwise, if he wanted to delete Satanism boxes but not other religions, that'd be highly inappropriate. [[User:Andjam|Andjam]] 01:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Tony action was fine, and the deletions should be even more widespread as several editors on both sides of the issue have said here. Then all that energy that is being expending defending things that have nothing at all to do with building an encyclopedia can be used to...well, build an encyclopedia! [[User:Rx StrangeLove|Rx StrangeLove]] 02:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I support Tony in this matter. Userboxes, for the most part, simply need to go away.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 03:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
*I support Tony's action, though I think his comment was out of line and insulting. I'd like to see all userboxes eliminated except those specifically of value to encyclopedia building. Problem is defining that subset; right now, mine say I'm a native English speaker, a marginal German speaker, and a musician; each of these says what I ''do'', not what I ''believe''. I think that's where the distinction lies; but there are nasty fuzzies there. (User Catholic might be bad. User Catholicism scholar might be OK. What about User Catholic priest?) --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:That's '''too''' easy... ;) <tt>[[User:RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">Radio</span>]][[Special:Contributions/RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">Kirk</span>]]</tt> <tt>[[User talk:RadioKirk|<span style="font-size: 9px; color: #161;">talk to me</span>]]</tt> 04:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:We can ask, what is the likely app? Language competency invites others to come to us for translation. That's practical. On the other end of the spectrum, "This user is interested in X" is a barely-disguised way to preserve the inappropriate userbox, complete with preexisting links to thusly-marked users.
:There us actually no need for templates declaring our "interests", except to facilitate talk-page spamming, vote-stacking and the like.
:One pillar of T2 policy ought be that offending templates must be ''deleted'', not ''redirected''. That way, we can't keep our partisan tokens through dishonest language.[[User:Timothy Usher|Timothy Usher]] 05:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I renew the following suggestion stated above. "This closure was overturned by another admin. Can we all leave this alone here now? There are better places to debate whether userboxes should be deleted. And this page is unlikely to produce any stronger remedy than overturning the early closure. GRBerry 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)" The template is back in deletion review. Better places to discuss T1 and T2 include but are certainly not limited to [[Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates]]. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 14:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
== Edits by Michaellovesnyc ==
[[User:Michaellovesnyc]] has been making repeated edits that push his point of view on [[Mail-order bride]]. [[User:24.45.47.102]] is also obviously him (they both edit mail-order bride almost exclusively and Michael responds on the anon user's talk page). Michael's changes have been discussed on his talk page and elsewhere, and he seems unable to accept that most of his edits are violations of Wikipedia policy. After I warned him on about the inappropriateness of his edits on [[User talk:Michaellovesnyc|his talk page]] and drew his attention to a [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-24_Mail-order_bride|mediator's opinion]] Michael made a new series of edits, including restoring the disputed material, falsely claiming "the mediator is on my side". His latest preferred version of the article is worse than ever, with vast amounts of OR and POV material, including blaming "feminist groups who distort the truth" for a law and bringing up unsourced stories "which the media will not report". He hasn't discussed any of these most recent changes on the article talk page, but has referred to me as a "know-it-all" and "cyber thug" who is trying to "intimidate" him and others. I reverted the page and mentioned it again on his talk page but I suspect he will keep reverting to his favorite version. Perhaps I should have brought this to Requests for mediation instead, but I think this is a matter of multiple blatant violations of policy, not just an unpopular point of view that would need mediation between two sides. Editors (especially [[User:Kaiwen1|Gavin]]) have been trying to reason with Michael for months (he has also been warned about vandalism before, but removed the warnings from his talk page). What should be done next? --[[User:The Famous Movie Director|Grace]] 22:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:I happen to agree with Michael's (ostensible) point-of-view, but I think his repeated insertions are rather disruptive; in any event, he seems not to appreciate [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:OR]], [[WP:NOT]], [[WP:RS]], and [[WP:V]]. In order that the community might express their views apropos of his conduct, and in order, perhaps, that he might be edified as to how properly to edit with respect to [[Mail-order bride]] and surrounding issues, in order that his sometimes valuable contributions might be used, you might do well to open a user-conduct [[WP:RfC|RfC]]. In situations such as this, it is always advisable, IMHO, to seek community participation and evaluation; a consensus will likely develop for or against Michael's edits, and he (or those who think him to be editing wrongly) might better understand how best to edit. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 22:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::Mediators from the Mediation Cabal have agreed that he's disruptive, but other than that consensus has been difficult to achieve, since only about 3 users have paid any attention to this article in the long-term (him and two who oppose him). He's certainly been informed of how his edits and conduct violate Wikipedia policy, but he seems to view these warnings as threats. I will be pursuing RfC. Thank you. --[[User:The Famous Movie Director|Grace]] 03:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
==Accusations of racism==
[[User:Gemini531]] is accusing me of racism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAfrican_American&diff=56213745&oldid=55075386 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamla&diff=next&oldid=56212960 here], stating that I am being "racial" (sic) and states that I "hate black people", which is untrue. She is claiming that I am refusing her permission to note that people on Wikipedia are [[African American]]. This is blatantly false, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGemini531&diff=55522216&oldid=55122541 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYamla&diff=56018313&oldid=56017296 here]. I believe Gemini531 is making a [[WP:PA|personal attack]] on my character. In my opinion, it is probably not a good idea for me to even warn this user, but I would like someone to block or at least significantly warn this person. I do not like being accused of [[racism]]. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] 22:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:I've warned the user. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 23:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
: Her remark here definitely crossed the line into unacceptably uncivil discourse. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYamla&diff=56214291&oldid=56211803 I don't think we should take any further action besides the warning but this is something to keep an eye out for. [[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 08:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
==Irredentist and inflammatory user pages==
Please see [[User:Makedonas]], [[User:Asteraki]], [[User:Macedonia]] and [[User:Makedonia]]. I have asked them to bring their user pages in line with the policy at [[WP:USER]]. If they do not do so within a day I shall be removing the offending content. I can't see a problem with this, can anyone else? - [[User talk:FrancisTyers|FrancisTyers]] 23:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:Reading again, perhaps I could have made that slightly less aggressive :) Basically, these pages are way out of line, and I'd like to make sure that I'm not mis-interpreting policy before I implement it. Thanks - [[User talk:FrancisTyers|FrancisTyers]] 23:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::A great deal of the text on [[User:Macedonia]]'s page is almost certainly a copyvio. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 23:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:::We are here to write an encyclopedia - not carry on ethnic disputes by proxy. Totally inappropriate userspace use - deal with it as neccessary - but it all has to go. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small><sup>ask?</sup></small>]] 23:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::::FrancisTyers, you are in the right. Their user pages aren't in good faith and just cause bad-blood among editors. Just make sure you gave them enough warning before you dealt with it yourself. --[[User:Dcabrilo|dcabrilo]] 00:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added [[User:Vergina]] and [[User:Makedonec]] to the merry band. - [[User talk:FrancisTyers|FrancisTyers]] 00:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:I entirely agree on this and thanks. Just give them a little more time, to do it themselves (a day is too-short a notice, check the frequency of their contribs). We've tolerated such content for too long now, not to give some more days to those guys to understand their error and correct themselves. Agree? [[User:NikoSilver|<span style="color:white;background:#778"> <span style="background:#889">N<span style="background:#99a">i<span style="background:#aab">k<span style="background:#bbc">o<span style="background:#ccd"><b>S</b></span><b>il</b></span><b>v</b></span><b>e</b></span><b>r</b></span> </span>]] <sup><font size="-2">[[User talk:NikoSilver|(T)]] [[Special:Emailuser/NikoSilver|@]] [[Special:Contributions/NikoSilver|(C)]]</font></sup> 11:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::A day is much longer than I was going to give them. I see [[User:Makedonia]] has already started to attempt to bring his page in line. As for the others, I understand [[User:Makedonas]] has been conscripted, well I'm not going to wait around for the Greek army. How long would you suggest we leave it? Also you should realise that deletion is not a terminal affair, their pages ''can'' be restored if they agree to bring them in line. - [[User talk:FrancisTyers|FrancisTyers]] 11:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:: I agree too. [[Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]] ought to apply to user space as well as article space. --[[User:Andrew Norman|ajn]] ([[User talk:Andrew Norman|talk]]) 11:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::Seems reasonable to me. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 11:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:You have a point about reverting anytime, I was just trying to prevent irrational reactions that would make things worse, when they come back and see their pages blanked. As for [[User:Makedonas]], his page used to be much milder, and I am sure he'll get in-line. People (ha! especially hot-blooded Greeks and Slavomacedonians) tend to over-react when they consider they've been victimised by what they interpret as use of excessive force. So, how about a week? [[User:NikoSilver|<span style="color:white;background:#778"> <span style="background:#889">N<span style="background:#99a">i<span style="background:#aab">k<span style="background:#bbc">o<span style="background:#ccd"><b>S</b></span><b>il</b></span><b>v</b></span><b>e</b></span><b>r</b></span> </span>]] <sup><font size="-2">[[User talk:NikoSilver|(T)]] [[Special:Emailuser/NikoSilver|@]] [[Special:Contributions/NikoSilver|(C)]]</font></sup> 12:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::I'm not sure how that would help to be honest. I mean, giving them four more days, or six more days is not going to help if they don't come online. I mean, if they don't come online before the time is up they are just as likely to "go postal" when they do. Do you have any way of contacting them? - [[User talk:FrancisTyers|FrancisTyers]] 14:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:Ok. No problem, I thought of something: When the time expires, '''I''' blank the Greeks and '''FlavrSavr''' blanks the Slavomacedonians. We also give them a nice message. Just say when is that, if FlavrSavr agrees too. [[User:NikoSilver|<span style="color:white;background:#778"> <span style="background:#889">N<span style="background:#99a">i<span style="background:#aab">k<span style="background:#bbc">o<span style="background:#ccd"><b>S</b></span><b>il</b></span><b>v</b></span><b>e</b></span><b>r</b></span> </span>]] <sup><font size="-2">[[User talk:NikoSilver|(T)]] [[Special:Emailuser/NikoSilver|@]] [[Special:Contributions/NikoSilver|(C)]]</font></sup> 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::An excellent idea. :) - [[User talk:FrancisTyers|FrancisTyers]] 14:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Great. Four things though: 1.Who, 2.When (tomorrow noon [or 9:00 UTC] I'll be available), 3.FlavrSavr agrees (he is not online)?, 4.Hold the automatic/semi-automatic/manual-counter-vandal horses. Ok? [[User:NikoSilver|<span style="color:white;background:#778"> <span style="background:#889">N<span style="background:#99a">i<span style="background:#aab">k<span style="background:#bbc">o<span style="background:#ccd"><b>S</b></span><b>il</b></span><b>v</b></span><b>e</b></span><b>r</b></span> </span>]] <sup><font size="-2">[[User talk:NikoSilver|(T)]] [[Special:Emailuser/NikoSilver|@]] [[Special:Contributions/NikoSilver|(C)]]</font></sup> 15:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::::I've moved the discussion to [[Wikipedia:Macedonian Wikipedians' notice board|my talk page]]. - [[User talk:FrancisTyers|FrancisTyers]] 15:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I've asked [[User:Bormalagurski|Bormalagurski]] to remove some similar stuff from his userpage (the "interesting articles" section). I hope he does this voluntarily. --[[User:Andrew Norman|ajn]] ([[User talk:Andrew Norman|talk]]) 08:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
== Would someone else like to deal with this? ==
I mentioned this above and got no response. If there is somewhere else I should go, please let me know where to take it.
See personal attacks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FSankta_lusse&diff=56224544&oldid=56214889], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABigDT&diff=56223583&oldid=56220112], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABigDT&diff=56124943&oldid=56025016]
See uninteligible English [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible_society&diff=56222910&oldid=56128247]
See user's other contributions ... basically, everything is along these lines [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Guillen]
[[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 23:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:Absolutely nothing constructive coming from that account, but I still have to think that he's just doing what he thinks is best. I left a final warning on his talk page; let me or anyone else know if he continues behaving as such, as I think a block would then be in order. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|talk]]) 00:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::Thank you [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 00:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:I've now blocked him for a week after he posted a personal attack on my talk page, which attacked Protestants and others on Wikipedia. I checked his contribs since I posted a last warning and saw that he is still editing in the same fashion, deliberately inserting bias and attacking other religions and individuals. Anyone who finds the block inappropriate may feel free to lengthen, shorten, or remove it altogether. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|talk]]) 00:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
== [[Brian J. Bruns]] ([[Brian Bruns]])==
Someone just now deleted the [[Brian J. Bruns]] article without any discussion at all. He is the owner/webmaster of [[AHBL]] and [[SOSDG]]. Who deleted it and why? Why was there no discussion of AfD? --[[User:Chakabuh|Chakabuh]] 01:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:It was deleted by {{admin|Phroziac}}, with the explanation "Inane junk to make brian look bad." I'm unfamiliar with the subject, but it looks like [[User:Bruns|Bruns]] himself was editing the article and fighting with you over the content. I'll invite Phroziac to explain the deletion here. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 02:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:''18:53, May 31, 2006 [[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] deleted "Brian J. Bruns" (Inane junk to make brian look bad)'' You might want to discuss it with him. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::It isn't inane junk and I uploaded a copy of page one of the extended TRO on Bruns: [[:Image:Fss vs bruns tro ext1.gif]] --[[User:Chakabuh|Chakabuh]] 02:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:::You mean the TRO that was dismissed when the rest of the case was? Perhaps if you actually read the court documents, you'd not be trying to tell me about a case that you have no involvement with. [[User:Bruns|Brian]] 02:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::::I haven't seen anything that indicates the TRO was dismissed. Please direct me to the document that shows this. --[[User:Chakabuh|Chakabuh]] 08:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::I believe the TRO is disrelated to Bruns' indictments. Bruns had 2 seperate indictments, per a plea agreement, one was dismissed, the other was not. See [[:Image:Brian Bruns Indictment 2423-02.jpg]], [[:Image:Brian Bruns DA Press Release.jpg]], and [[:Image:Brian Bruns re Indt 2423-02 and 1577 02.jpg]] --[[User:Chakabuh|Chakabuh]] 08:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:::A blind man would see they are completely separate from one another. The incidents happened 3 years apart. Either way, between lying through omission, and twisting the truth to your own vision, you've made yourself look like a sockpuppet for some really nutty kooks. [[User:Bruns|Brian]] 17:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Brian, your believe your rhetoric is against wikipedia rules about getting along with other contributors. There is no lying through ommission, only confusion on my part and the other contributors parts in trying to understand these court papers. --[[User:Chakabuh|Chakabuh]] 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I said that the cases are seperate because some of the other editors seemed to think there was only one (the case filed by Scoville). We can now see you were indicted for hacking and software piracy both of which are felonies. The hacking crime was dismissed, I don't know why, but others say because you made a plea agreement and we have nothing to see so we can't make a determination here in Wikipedia until we get documentation. But the software piracy was not dismissed. Calling you a felon is not an attack or libel. It is true and cited to a reliable reference: a court doc from the court in New York [[:Image:Brian Bruns Indictment 2423-02.jpg]]. --[[User:Chakabuh|Chakabuh]] 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Phroziac mistook a vandalized revision for an attack page. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] <small>[[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]</small> 02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:The only vandalism I saw was the blanking by Bruns. --[[User:Chakabuh|Chakabuh]] 02:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:That must be what happened. I know Brian, and he was trying to explain the situation to me, and I was in a rush, saw the page, and thought he meant it was an attack page. I was in a rush to go to bed early (we had a huge run with 600,000 impressions the next day), and he wanted me to do something about it. I really don't think he's notable though, AFD perhaps? --[[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] ''[[User talk:Phroziac|♥♥♥♥]]'' 22:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
=== Constantly blanking and placing speedy delete tag ===
Brian Bruns keeps editing his own article, blanking and adding sd tag. --[[User:Chakabuh|Chakabuh]] 02:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:I protected the article, it's a content dispute (although I don't see what the big deal is with the deletions and all). Please use the talk page. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] <small>[[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]</small> 02:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
In this rare case, the editor who's editing an article about himself appears to be in the right. It strongly appears that a previous editor was trying to use the article to forward a factually erroneous claim -- namely, that Bruns is currently under a court's restraining order. Removing an erroneous claim is simply correct.
Moreover, considering the history of the case (with which I have some small passing familiarity) it seems likely that the article was created either as an attack or a prank. The first revision describes Bruns as [[leet]]; other early revisions claim Bruns to be a convict, and to be under a restraining order. Neither of these claims are substantiated.
It is far better that Brian Bruns ask for the article to be removed (by proposing it for deletion) than that he, e.g., go to the press and denounce Wikipedia for libelling him, the way that some people have. :) --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 05:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:Lol, FOo, the claims are susbtantiated. There is no libel, '''I uploaded scans of the court documents, see above'''. And the article is protected in a state where none of this is mentioned. If Bruns goes to the media denouncing Wikipedia for libelling him, it will only make him look silly since we have court citations to back up what we write. --[[User:Chakabuh|Chakabuh]] 08:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:OH :) The TRO is baby stuff. The indictments are more interesting. Foo, inform yourself before attempting to make "factual" statements please. --[[User:Chakabuh|Chakabuh]] 08:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::Hmm. That's the TRO that was ''vacated'' when the case was ''thrown out of court'', right? My statement stands; you're using Wikipedia to attack someone. That's simply not allowed here. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 08:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Are you saying you still dont get it? Forget the TRO, the indictment over hacking are more interesting and I've uploaded scans of the references. No one is attacking anyone, just getting knowledge into Wikipedia. Bruns doesn't seem to like that. You really shouldn't be supporting vandalism and "autobiography". --[[User:Chakabuh|Chakabuh]] 08:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::::An indictment that was dismissed, and far from notable (unless suddenly wikipedia decides to document every indictment/dismissal against every person in the world). An indictment that many kooks try to say is a conviction in an effort to discredit and ruin my reputation. I corrected your statement in the article about me before wiping it out completely in the hope that you'd see your mistake. However, you didn't get the clue, and kept stating as a fact that I was convicted of hacking even when the paperwork involving the case was right in front of your face and said contradicted your assertations. [[User:Bruns|Brian]] 17:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Yes the hacking charge was dismissed, but you still were indicted, just not convicted. It is notable, so notable that even the DA's office made a press release about it. Again, your rhetoric about "kooks" is not appropriate in Wikipedia. It is true that they are incorrect in saying you were convicted, as you were not convicted and the charge was apparently dropped. However, you ommitted the fact that '''you were convicted of software piracy''' which is a class E felony. I and the others have made mistakes because there is some confusing information about your cases and Scoville and Schwarz haven't presented all relevant documentation. But your person attacks on me are unacceptable. Yes I made some mistakes and I have corrected my data. Now stop posting ad hominem and lets get the correct information into your article. And if you have anything positive about you, please give us references so that we can also write about it. --[[User:Chakabuh|Chakabuh]] 17:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::There are very few people out there that are qualified to write a bio on me besides myself. There's been a few news articles that were done with quotes from me (mortgage lender newsletter, lightreading article on WASTE/P2P, and a few smaller things), but I don't think that or my association with the SOSDG/AHBL makes me notable and worth anything beyond my personal user page. [[User:Bruns|Brian]] 17:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::No, autobiographies are severely frowned upon in Wikipedia. But please give us those references so we can add mention of them to your article. I don't want you looking only like a software pirate because you are a young person obviously with a lot of talent. NPOV. --[[User:Chakabuh|Chakabuh]] 17:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Honestly, I have no further interest in discussing things with you. It's painfully obvious that you are doing this to instigate problems. Hell, it looks an awful lot like you're obsessed with me. I'm surprised you're not stalking me in real life, considering how deep your obsession is getting. [[User:Bruns|Brian]] 19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Brian, stop making uncivil accusations. --[[User:Chakabuh|Chakabuh]] 21:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::I would like to request that an admin rereview my request to delete the article and associated talk page. [[User:Bruns|Brian]] 19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::You already tried that. Articles aren't deleted just because the subject of the article wants it deleted. --[[User:Chakabuh|Chakabuh]] 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Chakabuh has not shown that I am a notable person, other then in his mind and the minds of other people [[obsessed]] with me. Being convicted of software piracy is anything but notable - I do not see every other software pirate out there being given wikipedia pages. He has also shown that he is incapible of doing proper research to back his statements, as seen by his constant insistance of me being convicted of something I was not even after being corrected multiple times. [[User:Bruns|Brian]] 19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::As the owner of SOSDG/AHBL, you are as notable as SOSDG and AHBL. Anything that can be verifiably referenced can be added to article within Wikipedia. I uploaded scans of your indictments. Again, stop making uncivil accusations. You were indicted on two accounts, only one of them was dismissed because you made a plea bargain. --[[User:Chakabuh|Chakabuh]] 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::If Chakabuh is really interested in my accomplishments, he should go research that information, then come back and recreate the article when he has valid information which makes me a notable person. [[User:Bruns|Brian]] 19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::You're notability has already been explained over & over, in my opinion you are more notable than some of the other people who have articles here in Wikipedia. I am trying to find more information about you and it will take time. Please help us by directing us to any reliable source that has written about you. --[[User:Chakabuh|Chakabuh]] 21:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
==Mikkalai's threat==
Please review this threat made against me by [[User:Mikkalai]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZoe&diff=56243035&oldid=56204804]. Just forewarning that I will consider any actions he takes against me as wikistalking. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 02:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, tremble. Very smart of you to know policies that work in your favor. How about following them in applying to other people when executing your admin rights? `'[[user:mikkalai|mikka]] [[user talk:mikkalai|(t)]] 03:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:Rogue admin sounds about right though I hadn't heard this term in reference to Zoe before, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 03:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::Zoe doesn't contribute to Wiki with anything. Their entire talkpage is about people who complain to them about removing material from articles. This user doesn't know how to add footnotes to articles, but wants to make them mandatory. This user blocked me for asking a relevant question on ANI about the Wiki policy; they called it trolling and being disruptive. --[[User:Anittas|Candide, or Optimism]] 13:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Zoe, that was no threat. There is nothing wrong with admins keeping an eye on other admins, it ensures the accountability of administrative actions. And, remember, also, that Wikipedia has to be transparent, and that any reasons for blocking must be clearly stated and the user has to be warned beforehand. Thanks, [[Image:European flag.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] '''[[User:Ronline|Ronline]]''' [[User talk:Ronline|✉]] 00:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::::The user has had several warnings and knows full well why he was blocked, his claims of innocence notwithstanding. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 19:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::::: You seem are still not getting my main point: '''this is not between you and anittas'''. Yet another admin put it in a differeyt way: your actions must be '''transparent'''. This is all what I wrote about this case in several places: without spending significant time for a research the whole episode shows that several non-frashman wikipedians acting really ugly. I may well believe this was the very goal of Anittas, so what? An admin '''has''' to have higher standards of behavior.`'[[user:mikkalai|mikka]] [[user talk:mikkalai|(t)]] 17:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::What did I do that was not transparent? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
== Inappropriate conduct by admin InShaneee ==
Pantherarosa was listed on [[WP:PAIN]] for making personal attacks against [[User:Melca]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard&diff=53655631&oldid=53568718] When I looked into the situation, I noticed that Pantherarosa had been removing warnings. I restored the warnings and add the do not remove warnings tag to his/her talk page. This caused Pantherarosa to start attacking me. I elevated the NPA warnings but (s)he continued. I continued to elevate the warnings but to no avail. I became annoyed and made one incivil remark to Pantherarosa. InShaneee posted a NPA warning on my page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_Cyr&diff=prev&oldid=53942939] When I contacted him about it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InShaneee&diff=53964019&oldid=53960262], he admitted that my comments were not personal attacks, but still refused to change the warning. He also said that all of my edits violated WP:CIVIL [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_Cyr&diff=prev&oldid=53966767], when in fact there was only one. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_Cyr&diff=prev&oldid=53968740] When I asked him for an explaination[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InShaneee&diff=53969882&oldid=53969378], he pretty much resorted to "it is because I say so". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_Cyr&diff=prev&oldid=53969706] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_Cyr&diff=prev&oldid=54134100] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_Cyr&diff=prev&oldid=54198095] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_Cyr&diff=prev&oldid=54243698]
Secondly, one of my comments was incivil towards Pantherarosa who had repeatedly made personal attacks against me. Wikipedia's policies go for all users regardless of circumstances, so an incivil warning should stay on my talk page. However, because I had made one incivil comment toward the other user, InShaneee refused to block Pantherarosa. Not only is this a double standard, but I was not even the one who had the brunt of Pantherarosa's attacks. As another user said on InShanne's talk page: ''Obviously you aren't interested to even consider that your action isen't the proper conduct of an experienced administrator.'' I agree with this completely, and to add on that InShaneee is refusing to punish Pantherarosa to make a point to me, even though I wasn't even the person Pantherarosa was originally attacking. The full discussion on WP:PAIN is here: [[Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard#Pantherarosa (talk • contribs)]] [[User:Paul Cyr|Paul Cyr]] 21:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
: Administrator, [[User:InShaneee]] exhibited a double standard when blocking me. He blocked me and stated on my Talk Page, "You have been blocked for 24 hours for disruption. If a user comes here, to an encyclopedia, asking for information, it shouldn't be difficult to point him to such info". However, I spelled out for him expilicity how the answers I gave, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AScientology&diff=53436018&oldid=53210255 difference], were w links that are sometimes in and sometimes out of the article, [[Scientology]] but are the most direct possible answers to the user's specific question. I also spelled out to him why the link answering, "when did the present Church of Scientology start?" is not present in the article today. InShaneee came up with the term, "linkspamming" to describe his blocking me for that answer. Then, in discussion on my talk page, [[User:InShaneee]] he made me a promise. "Fax us over some of those high-level OTs and I PROMISE you it'll get fixed up." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATerryeo&diff=53543150&oldid=53540971] Left unsaid was "I'm with the Cartel, you should betray Scientology and Fax "us" confidential documents." Whether he is aware or not, such an invitation is unethical to make and would be unethical to fulfill.[[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 22:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
: I agree with both users above. [[User:InShaneee]]'s conduct is not proper for an administrator. There's more to being an admin than giving warnings out like candies and refusing to discuss related issues. [[User:InShaneee]] was adamant that accusing someone of trolling even if they are a troll constitutes as a personal attack, when I displayed that he himself has accused other users of trolling and that it's hypocritical he blocked me for 24 hours in retaliation.--[[User:Eupator|Eupator]] 03:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
::Being unpopular is usually par for the course for admins, especially those who have [[Shore Patrol|SP]] type roles. I personally think that InShaneee is a good lad, a bit of a laugh. Thanks. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 05:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
::: I believe our statements don't address his sense of humor, but address his judgement. Though his sense of humor would be a subject that might be explored. :) [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 05:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
:::You know what's even funnier? I was warned by InShaneee for making a similar remark as Wallie just did. I imagine that if you weren't defending him, he'd give you a civility warning. In fact, mocking a complaint is incivil, so why don't you deserve a warning? [[User:Paul Cyr|Paul Cyr]] 20:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
::::I realise you were hurt at my comments. I have said sorry on your talk page. I did not want to get in the way of your compliant. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 00:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::For the record, I have no problem with being called "a good lad". :) --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 00:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
::Inshaneee is quite right in saying that calling someone a troll is a personal attack even if they are trolling. Just like calling an obese person "fat" is a personal attack. Just like calling someone with cerebral palsy a "spastic" is a personal attack. Just like telling an ugly person they're ugly is a personal attack. Just like calling someone with low intelligence "dumb" is a personal attack. I could go on but I think you get the message. The accuracy or otherwise of a personal attack does not make it any less a personal attack. In fact, usually the accurate personal attacks are the most hurtful. [[User talk:Snottygobble|Snottygobble]] 05:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Not always. [[WP:NPA]] is pretty clear that the comment may be considered personal attack "if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom." If it is a relevant and fundamentally informative observation, then by definition it's not a personal attack. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 05:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Calling anyone a troll is always wrong. It is a device to get your own way when editing articles. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 18:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
::::I agree with Snottygobble on this. There is an additional argument here about not feeding trolls; calling a troll a troll is an indication to them that they have provoked an emotional response, and as such is an incitement to troll some more. Better just to leave the default messages. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 13:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
::Eupator, can you provide diffs of where InShaneee accused others of trolling? I just want to make sure all claims are linked to with diffs so that we don't have people accusing others of lying. [[User:Paul Cyr|Paul Cyr]] 05:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
::: Just look at his contributions, you will find many instances such as this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Terryeo&diff=53436764&oldid=53436608], I merely pointed out that it's hypocritical for which he blocked me for 24 hours.--[[User:Eupator|Eupator]] 15:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Don't see anything wrong. '''[[User:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">Will</span>]]''' ([[WP:EA|<span style="color: green"><sup style="margin-right: -0.2em">E</sup><sub style="margin-left: -0.2em">@</sub></span>]]) <em><strong>[[User_talk:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">T</span>]]</strong></em> 17:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I was not going to engage in this, partly because I qualified InShaneee warning against me, Eupator and Paul Cyr as a lack of experience from this administrators part, but to my surprise having seen him/her sign a disput which I don't ever remember having seen him/her even being engaged in or involved in or having even edited those articles or their talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FFadix&diff=54091641&oldid=50756937], I had to conclude that this was a retaliation to my remark about him/her [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InShaneee&diff=prev&oldid=53970525], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_Cyr&diff=prev&oldid=54079543]. Administrators should not act like this, retaliating against a user like this reflect immaturity. Also, I am troubled that some veterans find it nothing wrong about InShaneee block against Eupator. While in practice there is nothing wrong in blocking someone for not respecting a guideline or policy, that the principal alleged victim here of Eupator remark was InShaneee, and to the measure that he/she took the decision to block him, I believe, InShaneee made this something personal and obviously reflect unexperience and somehow a lack of judgement. Also, that Lutherian is a troll, I will repeat this and should never be blocked for this. A checkusers has reflected that he is indeed a troll, he has done nothing in Wikipedia other then trolling and slandering members. Insteed of provoquing veterans of Wikipedia by giving warnings because those veterans have retaliated against a troll, he/she should work to prevent such things to happen. [[User:Fadix|''Fad'']] [[User talk:Fadix|(ix)]] 18:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
:Calling someone a troll is no different than calling someone a vandal - the characterization should only be made when [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] is no longer reasonable. Otherwise, it shouldn't be considered a personal attack, as it indicates specifically whether an editor's edits primarily disrupt Wikipedia; it doesn't address any personal trait. [[User:HKT|HKT]] 20:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
::I agree, though I think in most cases there are far better alternatives to using such terms. If a troll needs to be dealt with, he should certainly be dealt with, but I just don't see how saying "You're a troll" solves anything in most cases. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 21:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
:::True. When it comes to warning others, though, "Watch out - he's a troll" is easier than "A high percentage of his edits exhibit trolling, and this trolling is further reflected in his edit summaries and talk page remarks." Nevertheless, I think that "You're a troll" would violate [[WP:CIVIL]] rather than [[WP:NPA]]. [[User:HKT|HKT]]<sup>[[User talk:HKT|Talk]]</sup> 22:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
:::: This discussion has been extensive about how to address a user, specifically the use of the term "troll", "vandal", characterization of individual editors, etc. Those were not the issues which brought this discussion into existence. InShaneee's (viewed by some editors) inappropriate blocking, inappropriate administrator behaviour was what brought this "good lad's" actions into discussion. Not the words he used, but the actions he took. To revolve around the words used denies the central issue which was the actions he took and the basis he took those actions on. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 06:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
While were discussing this, these edits were given before and shortly after Pantherarosa received the final warning tag: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pantherarosa&diff=prev&oldid=53828928 edit summary] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pantherarosa&diff=prev&oldid=53778025] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Melca&diff=prev&oldid=53776923] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=53776730] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pantherarosa&diff=prev&oldid=53772169] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pantherarosa&diff=prev&oldid=53771327] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pantherarosa&diff=prev&oldid=53759452 blatant attack] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mohammed_Mossadegh&diff=prev&oldid=53597725] and yesturday she made two more personal attacks as shown here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=55105783] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=55108115]. Specifically, ''It cannot be tolerated that a kid playing snitch spreads unproven rumors at his fancy!'' and ''I do not wish to have to deal with trolling and bad faith slanderous kids''. Pantherarosa has already received countless warnings and I believe has begun using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Pantherarosa sockpuppets] to attack me as well. Could someone please block him/her? Given the edit histories of the suspected sockpuppets, I think it's reasonable to assume that they are Pantherarosa's. Therefore I ask that they be blocked indefinately, and the actions by Pantherarosa factored into the action to be taken. [[User:Paul Cyr|Paul Cyr]] 21:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
:Am I having hallucinations or am I really being trolled by {{RPA}} making bad faith, slanderous assertions, aimed at smearing my (and others') name?? Would all that be in anybody's interest, i wonder? In case I am not having hallucinations, should this {{RPA}} individual be tolerated here, playing all sorts of pranks and wasting everybody's precious time? {{RPA}} In case this theorem applies, i wonder how he could be helped, maybe by keeping his access blocked for a while, to to give him time for reflection; perhaps, as a consequence, leading to the possible revelation that he actually does not contribute a thing to this ENCYCLOPAEDIA but merely exhausts editors and admins with futile and bothersome trolling? His contributions log, in any event, is conspicuous with similar actions and I have chosen to observe it on my watch list. [[User:Pantherarosa|Pantherarosa]] 10:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
::I've removed the personal attacks, the diff is here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=55403715] [[User:Paul Cyr|Paul Cyr]] 20:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I was blocked by this user while having a dispute with him, an obvious violation of [[WP:BP]], this user has abused his powers numerous times and is out of hand , he thinks it is ok to call anyone and everyone a troll. I think something should be done about him.--[[Gorillaz|<font color="Blue">'''GorillazFan'''</font>]] <font>[[User:GorillazFanAdam|'''<font color="Teal">Adam</font>''']]</font> 00:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
'''I've been waiting over a week for a response! Could admins please take action?''' [[User:Paul Cyr|Paul Cyr]] 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:After the edit I had made yesterday on this board InShanee maliscosly blocked me, I find this to be an abuse of admin powers and ask that an honest admin please unblock me.--[[User:GorillazFanAdam]]
== More bad choices of usernames ==
*21:15, May 31, 2006 {{vandal|Hamburgers on Holy Wheels}}
*21:19, May 31, 2006 {{vandal|IEatChildren}}
Also, {{user|Wikpedia}} has good intentions according to his contribs, but is his username OK?--[[User:Ikiroid|<tt><b><font style="background:green" color="white"> The ikiroid </font></b></tt>]] 03:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:First two indef-blocked. Looking into Wikipedia. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|talk]]) 03:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::Let me just drop [[User:Wikpedia]] a friendly note, no need to angrily blocked. Actually, in retrospect, probably what I should have done before blocking IEatChildren. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|talk]]) 03:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::Note dropped. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|talk]]) 03:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I eat children, too, but I don't brag about it. ;-) I corrected the username in AmiDaniel's post. -- [[User:Kjkolb|Kjkolb]] 07:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
==The Ass Vandal==
*21:25, May 31, 2006 {{vandal|Praties in your ass}}
*21:25, May 31, 2006 {{vandal|Elms in your ass}}
*21:25, May 31, 2006 {{vandal|Jars in your ass}}
*21:24, May 31, 2006 {{vandal|Steam in your ass}}
*21:24, May 31, 2006 {{vandal|Cream in your ass}}
*21:21, May 31, 2006 {{vandal|Berries in your ass}}
*21:21, May 31, 2006 {{vandal|Field in your ass}}
*21:21, May 31, 2006 {{vandal|Buns in your ass}}
*21:20, May 31, 2006 {{vandal|Fire in your ass}}
There's a lot more where that came from. We have a new vandal.--[[User:Ikiroid|<tt><b><font style="background:green" color="white"> The ikiroid </font></b></tt>]] 03:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:HappyCamper and I tag-teamed a couple, but I think we got 'em all. Bring on the rest! [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|talk]]) 03:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::I don;t know if "tag-team" is the right word in this situation if you know what I means.- [[User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg]] | [[User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Talk]] 15:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:: We don't have an article for [[Praties]]... <tt>:|</tt> [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 05:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I think they're all gone. What a weird person.--[[User:Ikiroid|<tt><b><font style="background:green" color="white"> The ikiroid </font></b></tt>]] 13:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::::You know you people really need to stop naming these vandals--[[User:205.188.116.65|205.188.116.65]] 15:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Hmmm i think i agree. I checked all the contributions, and it turns out that ''none'' of these editors has yet made a contribution... but they are vandals? Maybe you could say user with superflous username or something like that but yes i hesitate to call it vandalism until something has actually been vandalised. [[User:THE KING|THE KING]] 17:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::I was wondering where those creamy steamed berries in jars came from. -- [[User:Kjkolb|Kjkolb]] 02:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
== vandalism ==
Just to let you know the following page is either a false entry or subject of vandalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism
:Fixed. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 04:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
==Is -Ril- back? ==
Can someone please have a look at the newly-created account {{User|-shill-}}. I'm about to have lunch now, but the <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> signature in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chooserr&diff=prev&oldid=56301656 this message] makes me suspicious. [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<b><font size="3">♫</font></b>]] 11:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked as sock or imitation. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 12:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
== Misuse of TfD: Deleted [[Template:User no notability]] template. ==
Some admin deleted this template without closing the TfD debate going on about it. The TfD had a majority voting for keep, with one "Kill with Fire". Isn't 6/1 basically consensus, and if it isnt, doesn't non-consesnsus default to Keep? If possible, please undelete [[Template:User_no_notability]] or at least get me the code so I can put it back on my userpage. -- <font color=blue>[[User:Ccool2ax|Chris]]</font> <font color=green size=1>[[User_talk:Ccool2ax|Ccool2ax]]</font> <font color=gray size=1> [[Special:Contributions/Ccool2ax|contrib.]]</font> 13:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
* It got [[WP:CSD|T1-ed.]] - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 15:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
* It doesn't really fit the criteria, and why didn't they try to post something on the ongong TfD? -- <font color=blue>[[User:Ccool2ax|Chris]]</font> <font color=green size=1>[[User_talk:Ccool2ax|Ccool2ax]]</font> <font color=gray size=1> [[Special:Contributions/Ccool2ax|contrib.]]</font> 21:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
== Just another FYI ==
Is this name kosher?
*00:44, June 1, 2006 {{vandal|Admin@samriposta.com}}
:Don't see why not. The fact it's an email address means it's very unlikely that anyone will mistake him/her for a Wikipedia admin. Suspect this user won't have many useful contributions to make though. [[User:The Land|The Land]] 14:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, {{user|Openland}} has created about 4 or 5 new accounts.--[[User:Ikiroid|<tt><b><font style="background:green" color="white"> The ikiroid </font></b></tt>]] 13:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:Can you tell us what they are? [[User:The Land|The Land]] 14:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Openland the logs]. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 14:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
==User: Stupidkit==
{{User2|Stupidkit}} This user is proposing the deletion of random notable articles for reasons of their chosing. Some of these are because they dislike the character. [[User:Yanksox|Yanksox]] 15:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:Banned. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 15:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::Good. Stupidity-only account. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 15:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC).
== Frater FiatLux ==
I'm having trouble getting the {{article|Golden Dawn tradition}} page unprotected. We have reached a semi-consensus and {{User|Frater_FiatLux}} is misunderstanding the situation. I have also filed a complaint of his violation of [[Wikipedia: Civil| Incivility]] at [[Wikipedia:Civility_noticeboard#Frater_FiatLux]]. Can anyone please explaine to me how to get this article unprotected? [[User:SynergeticMaggot|Zos]] 17:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::This infra user “Zos”, has harassed and beleaguered all my comments to the talk area discussion and has taken it upon himself to frequently misrepresent out of context every posting I have made. I want to place my own compliant about this unscrupulous user, can someone send me details please.
The reason for this: “Zos”, is in cahoots with user “JMAX555”, that has instigated this most recent disputation due to performing defamatory and libellous edits on the Golden Dawn article. To which I have rightfully contested and made a stand against.
I reiterate that this user “Zos”, wants me to be removed from the board as I am the only person rivalling his crusade to deform the present, and rightfully protected article, in to “JMAX555” libellous version. The motives of both these wikipedia users is that they’re both part of the same order, that has a vested interest in propagating anti HOGD/A+O, propaganda and distorting the facts.
I have submitted an array of evidence such as public ___domain court affidavits from the original source with comprehensive explanations on why the present un tampered version of the article is the correct, verifiable, and most neutral. Please see the discussion page for the Golden Dawn article in question, where I have fully validated all of my comments comprehensively.
Furthermore, this user “Zos” has in an unprincipled manner made an advertisement on the discussion page to announce and invite people to join in, to attempt to kick me off the discussion forum for the Golden Dawn article. The reason being “Zos” and “JMAX555” have no answers to my postings and are simply seeking now in a last attempt at trying to silence me. Solely so that they can carry onto try and approve a defamatory version of the article
I have adhered with recitude to Wikipedia's protocols fully throughout.
[[User:Frater FiatLux|Frater FiatLux]] 17:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:My take on this is that as soon as the article is unprotected, the edit war will begin again. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 18:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::Dear J Kelly:
Well to make a first step:
If JMAX555 would agree not to make unannounced, clearly libellous and defamatory changes to the HOGD/A+O article entry, then I would be happy. Furthermore, I wouldn’t instigate any editing war if this were to be agreed. But JMAX555 has changed the HOGD/A+O article entry in a defamatory tone, when he is no part of that organisation and a leader of the opposition that is currently in litigation. This is why I have protested. If he stops and leaves the HOGD/A+O entry alone, as it has nothing to do with him, other than change it in an biased unprincipled manner; then that would be a start for me.
[[User:Frater FiatLux|Frater FiatLux]] 18:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::JKelly: I agree. If Fiat Lux would care to make his "first step" proposal to the Discussion section, I will respond. - [[User:JMax555|JMax555]] 19:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::Dear fellow Users, this is a section of a reply that I made to "JMAX555" on the Golden Dawn article talk page. I include it here as it address "JMAX555" supra comment.
You'll have to wait for my offer, as I will have to find the relevant page, or method in which to submit it, and furthermore, I‘m not on the Internet, permanently, twenty-four hours a day either. I‘ll submit the compromise in due course, very shortly, when I know where and who to make it to. I do not feel this is unreasonable, so there’s no value in being disingenuous towards me taking time to make my submition of the compromise. I can assure the mediator that I will definitely be producing this compromise very shortly.
In the meanwhile, I feel, all messages should be suspended to the GD article talk page, and no more past disputation pages should be pasted to the present disputation, as it will only confuse matters. The mediator will need time to go through the information on this page, it is only now fair to the mediator to leave further pointless disputing and actually put all efforts into compromise and sorting this out with the mediator directly. I will find out exactly who and where to serve my "first step" as you put it.
[[User:Frater FiatLux|Frater FiatLux]] 01:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
==[[User:Adrian Bunk]]==
This user is going through and mass-prodding/AFDing articles for having no inbound wikilinks or (in his opinion) for having been tagged for cleanup for too long. It's highly disruptive, and the vast majority of these pages seem to be useful and perfectly viable pages that (big surprise) just need to be cleaned up and expanded. The whole mess feels like a [[WP:POINT]] violation, and I'm mentioning it here in the hope that someone with more authority than me can call time out and figure out a better course of action. -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 17:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:A glance at his contributions show that his 'mass-prodding' seems to be mainly articles by [[User:Edbon3000|Edbon3000]], who periodically creates dozens of articles at a time about the Filipino film industry which have no [[WP:V|verification]] whatsoever and have frequently been deleted. He has never deigned to communicate with editors despite entreaties on his talk page. The one article I remember him creating that was actually on a notable and verifiable person, [[Rogelio De La Rosa]], was actually inaccurate from start to finish and had to be completely rewritten (by me, in fact). See [[User:Proto/actors]] for more on this.
:Nominating Edbon's articles for deletion is not only not [[WP:POINT]] but probably the best course of action. Has he prodded any articles, Steak, that you can find [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] for? --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 17:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::The first one that caught my eye was [[Manning Island]] (Australian gov't source on article page), but here are a few others: [[Luis Rodriguez Varela]]([http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Luis+Rodriguez+Varela%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 books]), [[Jacobo Fijman]]([http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Jacobo+Fijman%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 books]), and [[Leiner Health Products]]([http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_10_25/ai_99125165 coverage of one recent deal], [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_km4476/is_200604/ai_n16334218 huge accident at one of their plants], [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_km4476/is_200604/ai_n16334218 23rd-largest private company in Los Angeles, $600M in annual revenue], [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1853839418&id=-yRfL4Q_t0cC&pg=RA1-PA100&lpg=RA1-PA100&dq=%22leiner+health+products%22&sig=osCVe5ZTcTWbIpmrAAxPpSbJLSY top American manufacturer of nutritional supplements as of 1997], [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0822333740&id=mWw0iefgg5AC&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=%22leiner+health+products%22&sig=8EWfyuGumGu-WR_b5Om2IC9jhTI top US manufacturer of nutritional herbs], etc.). There are probably others (in fairness, there are some real clunkers, too, and all the Filipino stuff looks more reasonable now that I know the context). We're interacting in a civil fashion on his talk page, so this might resolve itself without fisticuffs or explosions. -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 19:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
== Category: XX of Oz ==
Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but [[User:Conradege]] is adding a lot of categories about the television programme Oz. Old categories about the show had been deleted, they are currently up for deletion review at [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Oz categories]] . Maybe someone could have a look? [[User:Inner Earth|Inner Earth]] 17:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
So far he hasn't added back any categories that were previously deleted. He's separating out the characters on the show by position (guard, prisoner, and visitor) rather than by gang. I don't think this qualifies as an incident. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 17:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
==[[Sveasoft]] vandal==
A vandal has been using numerous open proxies today to make advertising-POV edits on [[Sveasoft]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sveasoft&diff=56349014&oldid=56348772] and [[WRT54G]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WRT54G&diff=56347723&oldid=56325026], as well as link spam on [[Talk:Main Page]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=56349311&oldid=56343425] and good old-fashioned vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Samuel_Blanning&diff=56303249&oldid=56302200] against the users that try to stop it (that link goes to [[Last Measure]]), as well as revealing of what purports to personal information (been deleting those diffs as I come across them, so can't provide them). I've been blocking each open proxy as it comes (they helpfully say "[This IP address] is running an open proxy" on the talk page - as each IP has never had any contributions but the vandal's, I see no reason not to take them at their word), and I've just semi-protected [[Sveasoft]] and [[WRT54G]]. [[User:AndrewBourke]] is clearly the same person. Please be on the look out for more. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 17:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:Further evidence is at [[User_talk:62.20.102.130#Ladies_and_Gentlemen_of_the_Jury...]]. Just follow the links to see the blatant harassment and vandalism from James Ewing. I say this is James because he's been rumored to be real big on harassing disgruntled ex-customers. But what are the odds of a random vandal posting from the subnet he personally owns?
<blockquote><pre>inetnum: 62.20.102.128 - 62.20.102.255
netname: SE-SVEASOFT
descr: Sveasoft Utveckling AB
descr: Wireless ISP
country: se
admin-c: JE730-RIPE
tech-c: JE730-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
mnt-by: TELIANET-LIR
source: RIPE # Filtered
person: James Ewing
address: Sveasoft AB
address: Myrvagen 3
address: 13463 Ingaro
address: se
phone: +46702704417
e-mail: james.ewing@sveasoft.com
nic-hdl: JE730-RIPE
mnt-by: TELIANET-LIR
source: RIPE # Filtered</pre></blockquote>
:An awful coincidence, no? This is why I'm recommending an edit block on '''62.20.102.128/25''', even though James probably reads text files on "how 2 h4x0r" by (ab)using [[Open proxy|open proxies]]. --[[User:Tokachu|Tokachu]] 19:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::If Sveasoft owns the subnet, block the whole damn thing. --[[User:Avillia|<font color="#228B22">Avillia</font>]] [[User_talk:Avillia|<sup><font color="#228B22">(Avillia me!)</font></sup>]] 17:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
==[[User talk:68.112.25.197|User:68.112.25.197]]==
{{vandal|68.112.25.197}} has made numerous personal attacks on me as well as [[User:Abu badali]], such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron_Maiden&diff=prev&oldid=56263423 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clive_Burr&diff=prev&oldid=56264363 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Parsons_%28British_Guitarist%29&diff=prev&oldid=56264993 here], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Day&diff=prev&oldid=56265216 here] (as well as other edits in the users contributions). This seems to stem from the fact that I have removed images from articles (that this user may have uploaded as [[User:Padgett22]], [[User:Onlyslighted]], and/or [[User:Steph11]] ... I am not sure how to report/check [[sockpuppets]], though [[User:Meegs]] seems to think Padget22 and Onlyslighted are [[User_talk:Moeron#Janick_Gers|one in the same]]) that are either unsourced or images that are not being used in fair use (most particularly when the image is from a DVD cover and is being used illustrate the person, not the creative property). Also, last evening/this morning, he vandlised [[User:Moeron|my user page]]. While these actions do not deter my Wikipedia resolve in anyway, I felt that it might be best to bring this up here and let the possible appropriate people look into these actions. Thanks. -- [[User:Moeron|<font color="darkblue" size="-9" face="Constantia">'''MOE'''</font><font color="darkblue" size="" face="Constantia">'''.RON'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Moeron|'''<font color="red">''talk''</font>''']] | [[User:Moeron/Completed Goals|'''<font color="green">''done''</font>]] | [[User:Moeron/Sandbox01|<font color="black">'''''doing'''''</font>]]</sup> 18:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:PS. Previous (and possibly) relevant ANI discussions can be found [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive100#User:moe.RON|here]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive100#User:Padgett22|here]] as they deal with the same actions and possibly the same user.
::Yikes, this user's edits almost consistently consist of personal attacks and a very hostile manner. I would recommend an immediate block. [[User:Cowman109|Cowman109]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User talk:Cowman109|Talk]]</font></sup> 20:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
== Persistent Vandalism from previously blocked IP address ==
This previously blocked publically used IP address '''199.216.252.3''' has resumed vandalizing pages. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/199.216.252.3 here]. [[User:Flibirigit|Flibirigit]] 19:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:Vandalism notices belong on [[WP:AIV]]. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Essjay'''</font>]] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>[[User talk:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">Talk</font>]] • [[User:Essjay/Contact|<font color="#7b68ee">Connect</font>]]</small>)</font></span> 03:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
== IP 216.144.171.168 Block Request ==
As outlined on their talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:216.144.171.168), this user has a history of malicious edits. His most recent vandalisms have been to remove the entire Slipknot and Fallout Boy articles to be replaced with "this band really sucks" and "hi". Personal feelings about those bands aside, he has contributed nothing of value and seems to exist solely to delete the work of others.
Thankyou; however this sort of thing should preferably go on [[WP:AIAV]]. [[User:The Land|The Land]] 21:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
==whatever Platypus it is this time...==
Could you check the doings of [[Special:Contributions/Duck-billed_platypus]], because I just realized that the one had moved a bunch of articles to non-NC-conforming names just after I moved them to NC-directed places. I have a suspicion that this is a sleeper account... [[User:Marrtel|Marrtel]] 20:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:Good catch, I blocked indefinitely for not making any useful contributions. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] <small>[[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]</small> 20:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
==User:Doom127 block or warning request==
I'd like to report that [[User:Doom127]] has repeatedly re-added content to the [[Wii]] article that myself and several other regular ''Wii'' article editors feel is POV. Further, when I posted a comment on his talk page explaining the reasoning for not including the content: [[User_talk:Doom127]], he not only deleted it, but labeled his reason for deleting my comments as vandalism. Upon reverting this change and posting a warning about deleting legitimate comments, he re-deleted my original and new comments, as well as the warning templates. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 00:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
: One word- bull crap. This VANDAL not only has blanked out legitimate AND SOURCED additions to the Wii article, he has repeatedly attacked me, harassed me, on my talk page (which I, in my legitimate capacity, have removed, as all his contributions to it have been harassing personal attacks and vandalism), and he's brought in meatpuppets to the talk page in order to "agree" with him. He's put comments down there such as "You are only here to attack the Wii!", called my legitimate and sourced additions "vandalism", blanked out sections of the page (which IS vandalism), and now he comes here to waste your time. Anyone who's checked my edit history knows that POV is quite important to me- I've never "attacked" neither the Wii, nor the PS3 or whatever. I recommend THAT user recieve a block- I don't deserve the treatment that him and his meatpuppets have given me, given the fact that I've spent a significant amount of time improving numerous Nintendo related articles with the attempt to keep out POV. --[[Image:Tinyducksig.jpg|20px]] [[user:Doom127|Daniel Davis]] 01:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::This only further proves that something is strange about this user's behavior. Other users agreed with me on their own, I in no way rallied them or am faking a consensus as he has implied. This user cannot accept that several users ''besides'' me disagreed with his basis for adding certain content. Check '''my''' contributions and you will see I have never intentionally vandalized an article, so calling me a vandal for the umpteenth time is in fact a violation of policy as I understand it. Please note per his talk page history that I originally left one comment about the reason for removing the '''one''' section he re-added and did not add warnings until after he removed my comment. He has once again removed those legitimate warnings from his talk page. And the wording of his comments has made it appear he wants to add a criticism section to the [[Wii]] page for the sole reason of doing so, not to enhance its quality. Check [[Talk:Wii]], I am not the only user who thinks so. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Neither of you are vandalizing, from your contributions. Stop the flamewar or I'll warn you both. [[WP:OWN]], [[WP:CIVIL]], [[WP:NPA]]. Take a chill pill, or go seek assistance from the [[WP:MEDCAB]]. Right now, neither of you can expect action against the other. Jesus. --[[User:Avillia|<font color="#228B22">Avillia</font>]] [[User_talk:Avillia|<sup><font color="#228B22">(Avillia me!)</font></sup>]] 01:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:I ask in all seriousness, isn't removing legitimate comments from your talk page an act of vandalism? [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 01:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:: I respect Avillia and trust his judgement. I accept his findings. --[[Image:Tinyducksig.jpg|20px]] [[user:Doom127|Daniel Davis]] 02:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::That's great and all, except, I would prefer to hear comment on our "behavior" from an [[Wikipedia:List of administrators|actual admin]] before I consider this matter settled. Accusing someone of vandalism all the while committing seemingly act of vandalism yourself seems pretty serious to me, if I'm wrong I can accept that. But a random user profanely telling me to take a chill pill isn't going to cut it. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 05:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::: Dude, YOU WERE vandalising! You harassed me ON MY TALK PAGE while simultaneously ripping out relevant information from the Wii, information that more than one *respected* (as opposed to Meatpuppet low-edit users) had stated should be in the article. Now Avilla has politely asked you to knock off your behavior, and I agreed that perpetuating the argument on Wii was without merit. But if you're going to keep up this junk, let it be on your own head. --[[Image:Tinyducksig.jpg|20px]] [[user:Doom127|Daniel Davis]] 05:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::[[User:Avillia]] may not be an administrator, but given that both of you seem to think that you're trying to improve Wikipedia, and you're having some sort of dispute that has you quarreling on [[WP:AN/I]] about who is "vandalising" by making edits the other doesn't like, the suggest to look at mediation doesn't seem amiss. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 06:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::: All I want is for him to leave my talk page alone. Is that too much to ask? --[[Image:Tinyducksig.jpg|20px]] [[user:Doom127|Daniel Davis]] 06:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::I originally left ''one'' single comment, based on ''several'' other user's consensus for his own information regarding the content removal. He accused me ''personally'' of being a "vandal" simply for commenting on his talk page. That wasn't right no matter how he wants to twist it. If we really need to take this to mediation, fine, but I still feel ''his'' actions were unwarranted and mis-directed toward me as I was not the only user who disagreed with him. In fact, forget it, I'll resolve this now: next time I won't bother keeping him up-to-date. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 06:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::How about you commit to letting other users warn Dannybu2001 about any vandalism going forward, and Dannybu2001 commits to letting you blank his complaints about your calling his edits vandalism on your talk? [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 06:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::: That sounds very reasonable. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 06:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Just a note -- There is no need to seek "comment on behavior from an actual admin." Wikipedia administrators are not charged with adjudicating disputes between users. There are [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution]] procedures for that. Admins are trusted with a few more ''technical tools'' than other editors, but they are ''not'' judges set over other editors. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 06:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
==[[User:Merecat|Merecat]]==
[[User:Merecat]] has remained blocked for 15 days, by an Admin ([[User:Katefan0]]) who has retired from Wikipedia. Could a new Admin take a look and please release the block so that Merecat can communicate on Wikipedia? I miss my friend [[User:Merecat|Merecat]], and hope that you will conclude the matter and consider his blocked period as "time-served." Cheers. [[User:Morton devonshire|Morton devonshire]] 01:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
: The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/Archive/May_2006#70.84.56.166.2C_et_al. checkuser evidence] looks pretty convincing that Merecat is a sockpuppet of Rex071404, who was blocked for sockpuppeting in order to avoid ArbCom sanctions. I would support keeping the block. [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] ([[User talk:Ral315|talk]]) 02:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::I understand your concerns, and don't know whether he is or isn't a sock -- I'll take your word for it. My question is different: assuming that he is a sock, he's been blocked for more than 15 days, isn't that an appropriate period of punishment for his violation? [[User:Morton devonshire|Morton devonshire]] 02:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::No, sockpuppets of blocked users are blocked indefinately. You're not allowed to use sockpuppet accounts in order to evade a block. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Essjay'''</font>]] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>[[User talk:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">Talk</font>]] • [[User:Essjay/Contact|<font color="#7b68ee">Connect</font>]]</small>)</font></span> 03:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::I agree with Essjay. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(meow)]]</sup> 07:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not clear from the above discussion who is the sock and who is the original user. Is there a non-sock user who has been blocked for the length of their dictated time? -[[User:Lethe/sig|lethe]] <sup>[[User talk:Lethe/sig|talk]] [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit§ion=new}} +]</sup> 08:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:[[User:Rex071404]] and [[User:Merecat]] are both indef blocked as sockpuppets of each other. That's kind of silly, I would think. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] is a user with a long history, however I cannot find any ArbCom decisions banning him from Wikipedia after October 2005. Anyone familiar with this matter? [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 09:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::See [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Merecat.2FRex071404|this]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#User:Rex071404.2FUser:Merecat|this]] for more information (not about the banning). -- [[User:Kjkolb|Kjkolb]] 10:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::The problem is that Rex was blocked by Cyde as a sockpuppet of Merecat. If I understand the situation correctly, Rex (the master account) should be unblocked and allowed to edit as long as he obeys the restrictions of his Arbcom case. [[User:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 12:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::I second this, someone obviously made a mistake in stating rex was a sockpuppet of merecat when rex was the earlier created account. It seems as though Rex should be unbanned if he is, since they cannot be sockpuppets of eachother. --[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]] [[User talk:Zer0faults|''<font color="Blue">talk</font>'']] 17:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Defending another user is of course very friendly and commendable, however the editors campaigning for an unblock fail to acknowledge that Merecat/Rex was blocked for ''disruptive editing'' also. The fact that numerous IP addresses (sockpuppets?) have appeared that '''1''' ask to unblock Merecat/Rex, '''2''' use uncivil language, '''3''' one of which has filed two bogus RFCU against opponents of Merecat/Rex, makes me anxious about allowing this user back without sufficient remedies, i.e. ArbCom. Further, I would like to point out that the recent RfAr against this user was rejected on the grounds of him already being blocked.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]]<font color="green"> [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]]</font><sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Nescio|Gnothi seauton]]</font></sup> 12:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Nescio is a likely troll or provocateur. He has previously been caught red handed using sockpuppets and trying to blame his sockpuppet edits on others see this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:80.220.222.68&oldid=56842751]
:::::Considering you asked for a Checkuser on two users who simply disagreed with your views I think your above comment is at odds with your own actions. "Keep it NPOV" is not really a valid reason to call for a checkuser is it now? the users you are asking for the checkuser on do have one thing in common, they have opposed you and Mr. Tibbs opinion ... --[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]] [[User talk:Zer0faults|''<font color="Blue">talk</font>'']] 17:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I ask this uninvolved -yet mysteriously interested, knowledgable, and now using ''Merecat'' in his sig(?!)- user to retract the '''false assertion''' that I filed a checkuser. Thank you.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]]<font color="green"> [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]]</font><sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Nescio|Gnothi seauton]]</font></sup> 23:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::So you are telling the admins to remove this [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#User:Rex071404.2FUser:Merecat]] since someone falsely filed this under your name? You are not listed there adding 2 more ip's to the check user? IP that are in two different states? --[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Zer0faults#Signature|''<font color="Blue"><sup>|sockpuppet|</sup></font>'']] 23:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Since {{user|Mr. Tibbs}} filed the request I hardly am capable of retracting it. You however, still need to retract the false allegation against me! As to the IP, if you look at the Rex/Texan categories you will find that these new IP addresses are comparable to the already known socks.Thank you for retracting.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]]<font color="green"> [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]]</font><sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Nescio|Gnothi seauton]]</font></sup> 23:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Under what comparison guidelines? ahh yes there support for merecat. Also you get no apologies, you obviously added on 2 IP's therefore initiating a RFCU against them. Thank you Nescio for accusing me of also being merecat and proving how horribly misguided these RFCU's are and this attacking on anyone who supports rex/merecat. --[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Zer0faults#Signature|''<font color="Blue"><sup>|sockpuppets|</sup></font>'']] 12:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Have you even looked at ALL the IP's involved? Second, you misrepresent the facts. The IP filed RFCU against me, and it was editing in a similar fashion as your hero. Therefore I deduced this is in line with known behaviour and makes it likely the IP's are socks too. Another misrepresentation is that I never accused you of anything. I did however observe that your obsessive defense of a known disruptive sock (whom you do not know!?), your use of Merecat/sockpuppet in your sig, and the continuous attacks against opponents of your hero is at best an unfortunate route to take.<font color="green"> [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]]</font><sup><font color="blue"><i><small>[[User talk:Nescio|Gnothi seauton]]</small></i></font></sup> 12:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::I looked at the IP's you have accused, now present your evidence, how do the two you filed RFCU against connect? How does the above link conform to merecat? They are on different ISP's, different states. As for you accusing me:
::::::::::::<blockquote> "You are very good. Misrepresenting the facts, leaving out relevant information. Indeed a worhty sockpuppet. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 00:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)"</blockquote>
::::::::::::<blockquote>"Smoke and mirrors Merecat.:) (In case you missed it, this is a joke)"</blockquote>
::::::::::::Located [[User_talk:Zer0faults#Merecat]], the final one was obviously not a joke. Perhaps you feel you can be offensive to someone and just add "this is a joke" to the end of the sentence, after just two lines up calling them a sockpuppet. So what links these users that are not on the same ISP, not in the same state? other then there support for merecat, which I also support and now have been accused by Ryan Freisling of being merecat also. --[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Zer0faults#Signature|''<font color="Blue"><sup>|sockpuppets|</sup></font>'']] 12:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
It appears that the real situation here is that Rex was banned and the ban has since been extended for his sockpuppeting as Merecat in an attempt to evade the ban. Merecat's edits have been highly tendentious and POV peddling. He has been insulting to other editors and made personal attacks. Regardless he does not seem to be modifying his behavior in response to the previous bans, they should continue until there is a likelihood that he will. --[[User:Gorgonzilla|Gorgonzilla]] 13:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
So how long is this ban? You say he doesn't seem to be modifying his behavior, but I do not see proof of that. Both merecat and rex cant be sockpuppets of eachother so one of them should have time limit to when they can return. Seeing as it seems rex would be the official user, when is his ban up? As for his POV peddling if you look at the articles he edits, everyone is POV peddling. For instance in the Iraq war article users are insisting only WMD's get mentioned and no other reason for going to war, undue weight? Anyway I think if Rex is banned then there should be a duration taht was issued or extended to, so what was that duration? --[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]] [[User talk:Zer0faults|''<font color="Blue">talk</font>'']] 16:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
: I've instead blocked Rex indefinitely again, this time under a more accurate reasoning- for sockpuppeting to evade an ArbCom ban, and general disruption. If any administrator disagrees, let me know, and I'll unblock, but Rex has been disruptive for a long time, and I don't feel his continued presence will in any way help build the encyclopedia. [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] ([[User talk:Ral315|talk]]) 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::So, what you're saying is that Rex071404 and Merecat are banned forever from editing Wikipedia? [[User:Morton devonshire|Morton devonshire]] 18:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::It means just that. Don't forget they're the same person. [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 18:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Anyone can appeal a community ban to ArbCom. [[User:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 19:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Look, I'm definetely not a fan of Rex, especially since his recent sockpuppet activities when he could have simply come back as himself. But I do believe Zero is right, you can't simply say well he's sockpuppeting again, therefore indefinite block. Violating a previous arbcom decision does not earn you an indefinite ban from Wikipedia. At the very least, if we're going to extend Rex's ban, there should be an arbcom decision that mandates it and a time limit should be set on the ban, otherwise that's just irresponsible blocking. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 19:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh, for those of you who are not aware of the history, here's some details: Rex joined in July 04 to conteract extreme pro-Kerry bias at [[John Kerry]]. Now, while Rex was more or less a sh*t there several times, the ArbCom cases involved found that multiple editors - not just Rex, wee caught up in the heat of the campaign and injected campaign bias into the JK article, both pro and con. Off an on since joining, Rex got in some SNAFUs for heaping insults and 3RR and also for obstructing the prgress of the (pro-Kerry) consesnsus at that article. As it stands, there are several things still in place against Rex. a) Do not edit [[John Kerry]] b) Cite all controversial edits to a reliable source and c) If "disruptive" can be banned from an article by any admin. As for violations of these, there are specific remedies in place, noe of which include a permanent ban. So let's assume for a minute that Merecat is Rex, what did this mean? It mean that that Rex, disguised as Merecat was able to successfully edit [[John Kerry]] with no problems. Ah, then it would follow that the oppossion to Rex's edits, att least at this point is ad-hominem in that an edit by Rex071404 would be opposed, but the samee edit by another name or IP is fine. Now regarding [[User:Neutral aribiter]] and [[User:Wombdpsw]], I see no evidence that they are "disruptive" or have "failed to cite controversial edits" or "have edited [[John Kerry]]. This being true, there is no acceptable basis that a check user ought to be run against either of them, for at worst, they would be alternate accounts (which is allowed - [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser see here]). Of course, the argument can be made "rex has exhausted community patience", but that does not hold water because Merecat (who is said to be Rex) had consensus on his side at the RfC (see here: [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat]]). Also the argument can be made that Rex evaded/sockpuppeted with Merecat, so he should be banned. PErhaps, but there are specified sanctions already in place by ArbCom which, if a penalty is applied to Rex, must be what's applied. Ad Hoc, shoot-from the-hip sanctions against Rex in the form of a permenant block is bust unsupportedable by process and flat out wrong. But let's suppose for a minute that Rex ends up permanently barred. I suggest to you that this is precisely what some editors here seek, but not for the reasons stated. Rather, the benefit of a perma-block on Rex is that for any editor who is later objected to by the known POV pushers like [[User:Keven Baas]] (see proof of that here: [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kevin Baas]]) and his allies such as [[User:Nescio]] himself currently blocked for 3rr violation at [[Haditha incident]] (Kevin and Nescio both advanced the failed Rfc against Merecat), these two and their like minded cohorts can simply say "REX" and seek to do a check user against anyone - based on minor editing vagaries. Frankly, what the Rex banners actually seek is a license to witch hunt against anyone, based on the "Rex" name alone. Now for all of you who are saying Rex=bad. I am wondering if you have even studies the edits of each account / IP being accused. The edits being made are not troll-bait and the editors making them are not being tendentious - no more so than editors such as [[User:Mr. Tibbs]] or [[User:Nescio]]. As it stands now, the wiki president for a long time editor who is being hounded off was set by [[User:Michael]]. Based on that, there is simply no reason that [[User:Rex071404]] should be denied the opportunity to transition to [[User:Merecat]]. But what's the point anyway - look at the edit history of [[User:Wombdpsw]] and see how [[User:Gongonzilla]] is now opposing ''him'' based on '''unconfirmed''' allegations of "sockpuppet". It's as if some editors prefer to turn off their ability to think critically and instead prefer to revert and oppsed based on user name alone. This being the case, I fail to see how a rational person would ''not'' changed account names regularly. To sum up, from where I see, it would appear that the complainst against Merecat's edits are basically groundless and Merecat was basicaly a good, albeit somewhat dogmatic editor. No reasonable person here can honestly say that Merecat was naywhere near as bad as Rex was. And there is simply no honest basis for inquiring against any of these newly accused editors. Have they been doing 3RR? Have they been calling names? None of them have done anything wrong. This "Rex" witch-hunting is nothing more that out-of-process ad hoc pig- piling. It's not intellectually honsest and it will not accomplish the goal of making the articles on the wiki better. Take a look at [[User:Rex071404]]'s talk page history and pull up the contribution list of of a few of those who keep reverting the unblock requests posted there. For example see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tawker this]. Does this user '''ever''' make any article edits? It seems that all he does is boss others around and talk to people. A comment pool (which is what the wiki is) will eventualy coagulate if a proper ratio of article edits to bossing is not maintained. When you have too many chiefs and not enough indians, nothing gets done. Take a look at the article [[White Cracker]]. Rex started that article and it has grown to be a valuable entry. Take a look at [[Yttrium aluminium garnet]]. Merecat started that article and it has grown to be a fine article too. What the "POPs" (political article police) around here don't understand is that people are naturally drawn to chime in on controversy. The controversial articles on the wiki are the "bait" which attract and retain editors. If you keep chasing ediors aaway from them, you will contribute to diminshing your compounding ratios. Oh well, ban away of you must, but don't fool ypurselves into thinking that you will achieve NPOV by chasing away only those who disagree with you. And if that's not what you are doing, then why are editors such as [[User:Prometheuspan]] allowed to run amok? I suggest that it's because he pushes a POV that many liberal editors agree with and for that reason, no matter how terrible he behaves (like recently calling wikipedia "evil" on Jimbo's talk page), it's all overlooked. Same too for [[User:Nescio]] and [[User:Kevin Baas]]. Regards, [[User:69.46.20.59|69.46.20.59]] 20:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
*Assuming that this IP editor is also Rex/Merecat, or that Rex/Merecat is reading this debate, I would offer the following advice. Admit to switching accounts, apologize for the talk page spamming that got Merecat banned in the first place (and also outed him as the Anon Texan), and agree to use only one account in the future and to abide by the last ArbCom ruling. Under those circumstances, it shouldn't matter which account he chooses to use. If no sympathetic admin will unblock at that point, appeal the community ban to Arbcom following the example of Saladin1970, [[User:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 21:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::What about the fact that there is no true "anon texan" user account and that acount was used fraudulently by certain liberal editors as a tracking device? Why do some editors get to make up sockpuppets, but others get blocked for socks and/or alternate accounts? Merecat did not create the [[User:Anon Texan]] account and neither did Rex. That account is a fraud and it enabled a FALSE check user to be run against Merecat. All the checkuser evidence against Merecat should be trown out as being unetheically obtained on an non-valid basis. What about all the false allegations about [[User:CantStandYa]]/[[User:Shran]]? Perhaps if people had just left the anonymous editor from Texas alone, Merecat not have come to life. Merecat's edit history shows him to have been idle form many months and only came to life with the IP editos from Dallas ISP were being hassled by POV warriors who made of the phony "Anon Texan" name. Thatcher, you yousrself have said that anon IP editor was not transgressing, so why should people be allowed to hassle him? There is no rule that says you have to log in to edit and frankly based on what happened to Merecat, why bother? There is a lot of finger pointing that could go around here and not all of it is on Merecat. And everyone nees to stop sayig "Rex!" "Rex!" all the time. If [[User:Rex071404]] had wanted to keep using that account, he would have been doing so since long ago. That fact that he's basically left that account as dead, should make clear that Rex is gone and will never edit under that name again. [[User:69.46.20.59|69.46.20.59]] 22:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::And yet somehow he keeps coming back using IPs and sockpuppet accounts. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 22:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
==[[User:Hoof38]]==
This user is writing articles like [[Second floor]], [[Third floor]], [[Fourth floor]], etc. These are totally useless entries, and if I could think of a way to tag them for speedy deletion, I would. As it is, someone is going to have to waste time prodding these or taking them through AfD. I'm assuming this is a well-meaning effort, but I'm not the only person to leave him messages about his articles. Help? [[User:Erik the Rude|Erik the Rude]] 03:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:Put them in for AfD if you feel they are not valid articles or need transwickifying, and see what the consensus is. Maybe they can be expanded as [[User:Hoof38]] says, or merged or just deleted. Debate seems the next step. Something unexpected might arise in the course of discussion (or maybe not). [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 04:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::I've left a message suggesting he add any interesting information to the main article, [[floor]]. If he agrees we can just quietly delete the articles without the need to go through AfD (that's [[WP:CSD|CSD G7]], for you policy wonks). --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 04:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Guess not. He's unprod'ed them all with the note "More than a dicdef" though he hasn't added any content to support it. [[User:Fan-1967|Fan1967]] 04:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Sounds like mass AfD time. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 04:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::[[User: Erik the Rude| Erik the Rude]] has taken care of it: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third floor|AfD's for Second through Tenth Floors]]. -- [[User:Fan-1967|Fan1967]] 04:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:The user has been indefblocked as a sockpuppet of [[User:Science3456|Science3456]] (same obsession with pandigital numbers as some of the socks that created all the panigital number pools). I have just denied an unblock request, so I obviously support the block. [[User:Kusma|Kusma]] [[User_talk:Kusma|(討論)]] 13:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::I was incorrectly called a sockpuppet. My account should be unblocked as soon as possible. [[User:152.163.100.65|152.163.100.65]] 16:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::As [[User:Kusma|Kusma]] has noted, [[User:Hoof38]]'s editing patterns mirror almost exactly many of the 100+ accounts in [[:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Science3456]]. Some examples of those contribs: [[Special:Contributions/Nintendo5000|ex. 1]], [[Special:Contributions/Jet Engines|ex. 2]], [[Special:Contributions/StarTrek|ex. 3]], [[Special:Contributions/Facts&moreFacts|ex. 4]]. The sad thing is that this person seems to be able to make positive contributions to Wikipedia, but often decides to absolutely ignore many of the rules here. -[[User:Big Smooth|Big]] ''[[User talk:Big Smooth|Smooth]]'' 00:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
== [[User:Gzlfb]]'s highly inapporpriate signature ==
He has been signing as "'''G-spot'''". He hasn't edited since May 28 though. I've left him a message.'''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]''' | [[User talk:Blnguyen|Have your say!!!]] 05:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:Debatable I think, though I haven't read the username guidelines in a while. On a website that has pictures of a vagina just 3 clicks away... =) --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 06:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::Check out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_name#Inappropriate_usernames Inappropriate user names]:
:::''Inflammatory usernames: Wikipedia does not allow potentially inflammatory or offensive user names. Inflammatory usernames are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia. This includes, but is not limited to:'' ...
:::''Names that refer to or imply sexual acts or genitalia, including slang, innuendo, and double entendre''
::It seems from this that G-spot is not an acceptable usage.
::[[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 10:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::: While I'm not sure where we stand on the issue, and I think it might be best for him/her to change the sig, note that it's not his username, it's his sig. Therefore [[Wikipedia:User name]] doesn't really apply. [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] ([[User talk:Ral315|talk]]) 17:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
== Talk:Rape / Many-Worlds / Michael D. Wolok / Nlu / lethe ==
I'd like some help on [[Talk:Rape]] -- in particular, {{user|Michael D. Wolok}} is turning it into a soapbox about what should be considered rape and what should not. Having someone else step in would be a very good thing, I think. --[[User:Nlu|Nlu]] ([[User talk:Nlu|talk]]) 06:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:How about putting in a [[WP:RFC|Request for comment]] to get third party involvement? [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 07:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:There's already [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society_and_law|one there]]:
:''[[Talk:Rape]] Whether the current lead-paragraph definition of rape should be replaced with a definition that {{user|Michael D. Wolok}} proposed. 23:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)''
:[[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 07:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I have 24 hour banned this character in the past for 3RR, which apparently caused him to call Jimbo's cell phone while Jimbo was sitting down to dinner with his parents [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=55481248]. Pretty hilarious. Anyway, Wolok does not "get" wikipedia, I can say that for sure. -[[User:Lethe/sig|lethe]] <sup>[[User talk:Lethe/sig|talk]] [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit§ion=new}} +]</sup> 07:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:Anyway, it's unfortunate that RfC did not have much effect, but is there any administrative action to be taken here? It seems to me that Wolok has learned not to violate 3RR, and you're just stuck with a stubborn user. Or maybe there is something I'm missing? -[[User:Lethe/sig|lethe]] <sup>[[User talk:Lethe/sig|talk]] [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit§ion=new}} +]</sup> 09:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::If the article RfC isn't getting enough response, have you considered trying mediation? If its just the two of you, you can always go for a third opinion as well. .:.[[User:Jareth|Jareth]].:. <sup>[[User_talk:Jareth|babelfish]]</sup> 09:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I've left a comment on the article talk page. The lead paragraph doesn't follow style guide at the moment. Wolok is right to be dissatisfied with it. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 09:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::His discussion about the lead paragraph is fine. It's Wolok's subsequent diatribe about how people should be allowed to have sex with partners who are asleep, intoxicated, &c. that's causing the talk page to deteriorate. That discussion doesn't belong on [[Talk:Rape]] because Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy. In effect, Wikipedia is about what things ''are'', not what they ''should be''. --[[User:Nlu|Nlu]] ([[User talk:Nlu|talk]]) 10:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::: Ah, I see. Those are pretty far-out things to be pushing on Wikipedia, and you might be able to get action on it (Mediation, Arbitration). In the mean time, I might suggest simply ignoring his diatribes on the talk page. Perhaps push them to a designated subpage, or to Wolok's own userspace (they can certainly derail existing constructive conversation which the talk page was meant for, so this is a good idea). Only if he tries to push his outlying views into the article is there a real problem, at which point, revert, and block for 3RR if necessary. This strategy worked well against Wolok at [[Many-worlds interpretation]], where we faced similar problems (long rambling OR). Now, this isn't an optimal solution. The optimal solution is to teach Wolok either to conform or to get lost. For that I see no easy solution. By the way, if you enact the suggestions I made, there is a good chance that Wolok will email every member of the Advocacy committee, the Mediation committe, the Arbitrarion committe, and Jimbo with the header "Greeting Earthling" and ask for a ruling against you. Be forewarned. -[[User:Lethe/sig|lethe]] <sup>[[User talk:Lethe/sig|talk]] [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit§ion=new}} +]</sup> 10:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Sorry to butt in, can help myself :) Who is this Wolok and why does he have Jimbo's cell #?? (that call at diner was funny) He is VERY new here, not like I am ANY veteran, but from the threads, he seems sincere and technology aside, seems like he wants to help. All the policies ect, can be overwelming. I might suggest that he tries to work on topics that he isn't so passionate about so he can learn the processes and inner workings of this project before trying to edit what really interests him. Maybe I'll do that now. Sorry for the interupption, carry on :) --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 18:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Just left a welcome note on this users page. Thinking about it more, it seems like the bans, ect are pretty harsh. This users is GREEN, like really green, SO WHAT!?! I remember my first days/weeks/months, come to think of it TO THIS DAY, I still strugle with all the policies/guidlines/afds/rfcs/wpbios/nors/npovs/ YADDA YADDA YADDA. I haven't looked at this guys edits because to me thats not the point. From the thread you can tell he CARES and he isn't (ok I am guessing here) a troll. With all the trolls and anti-WIKI and admins blanking their user pages we NEED to be more welcoming it seems. OK, I am done rambling and preaching, this really ain't my style. I would be HAPPY to work with this guy and I don't know him from Adam. Cheers! --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 18:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::I would agree that Wolok is not a troll. He has good intentions. I disagree with most of the rest of what you wrote. -[[User:Lethe/sig|lethe]] <sup>[[User talk:Lethe/sig|talk]] [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit§ion=new}} +]</sup> 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it kinda weird how he sometimes signs his posts "Grass"? I wonder what's up with that. -[[User:Lethe/sig|lethe]] <sup>[[User talk:Lethe/sig|talk]] [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit§ion=new}} +]</sup> 03:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Although I can understand someone being mad with drunken sex being defined as rape (I am), that is not the legal definition as far as I know, and does not belong there. Does the user understand this? Then again, advocating for sex while a person is asleep to be legal is pretty strange. I get images of [[necrophilia]] in my head just thinking about it. (person doesn't respond) --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 10:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
'''I wish I know how to indent.'''
'''Hi Folks,''' Thank you Tom, for pointing me here. First, of all, lets get something straight. I '''NEVER''' said having sex with someone who is asleep is not rape, nor did I ever say it is rape. I said it can be rape or not, depending on the circumstances. Nlu apparently disagrees and maintains it is always rape to have sex with someone who is asleep. He apparanlty has arrived at his belief by misunderstanding something he read. If someone has sex with their wife, and they know their wife wouldn't mind, and they are right, I doubt many people would call this "rape." Moreover, I don't think there is a court in the world that would call this rape. Apparantly Nlu disagrees with me. The issue is relevant to the article because we are trying to define "rape." I suggested rape is non-consensual penetration. Then I questioned my own definition. I am not convinced that every case where there is not express consent is properly called rape, such as the example I gave.
Actually, both Nlu and Lethe are arrogant, partronizing, condescending, insulting, and belittling. They each insist on forcing their view by reverting additions without discussion, by not making any attempt to edit additions but reverting them in their entirety. Lethe claims he doesn't read what I write on the discussion page, still he reverts everything I write. I need an advocate and moderation or mediation.
I inadvertantly violated the 3RR on my very first edit, because I did not know Wikipedia had this rule. After I learned this rule, I did not violate it again, though Lethe claims I did.
Lethe claims everything I wrote is wrong. I sent my additions to a world renown phyicist and cosmologist, Max Tegmark. He is a Ph.D. professor of physics at MIT. He listed my additions one at at time, and after just about each point I made, he agreed with me. Still, Lethe again and again removed them all from the article, even after other editors left them in with just minor modifications. I independently discovered Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. I never made this claim before, and I don't expect anyone to believe me. I arrived at the interpretation strictly from logic.
I tried to imagine a perfectly logical nascent universe. I realized that such a universe would be in the exact same position as Buridan's ass. I couldn't see how a perfectly logical universe could again and again choose just one path out of many equally good paths. The Copenhagen Intepretation of Quantum Mechanics would have us believe that the universe just takes one single path out of a near infinite number of equally good paths. I then asked myself what would happen if the universe took every possible path like electricity takes every equally good path. I immediately realized if the universe did in fact take every possible quantum path, it would answer all but one of the paradoxes and difficulties of Quantum Mechanics. Every proponent of the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics agrees with me. I believe it is important to get all the advantages of the Many Worlds Interpretation listed in the artlce. Lethe disagrees with the Many Worlds Interpretation, and doesn't see why those who favor it see the problems they do. The Many-Worlds Interpretation addresses most of Einstein's objections to the theory. Any objective party would agree with this, but Lethe disputes every single thing I say.
''''''Subject: Re: Greetings Earthling! Prof. Max Tegmark'''
'''Date: 5/19/2006 9:54'''
'''From: tegmark@MIT.EDU'''
'''To: MichaelDWolok@aol.com'''
'''Hi Michael, Thanks for your message and kind words. Alas, I'm too swamped by various deadlines right now to respond in detail to your MWI questions or accept your intriguing trading offer. As you know, I'm a strong supported of Everett's MWI. My opinions are well summarized in the two articles at http://space.mit.edu/home/
tegmark/everett.html and http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/
quantum.html.'''
> I claimed Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation
> offers the following advantages over the Copenhagen
> Interpretation.
>
> 1. It more simply and more naturally resolves the
> paradox of wave-particle duality.
'''I agree.'''
> 2. It justifies the anthropic principle.
'''I agree, but only partially, since Level III adds nothing new over Level II - see http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.html'''
> 4. It automatically generates Feynman's sum-over-histories.
> The Copenhagen interpretation does not generate
> Feynman's sum-over-histories.
>
> 5. In other interpretations Feynman's sum-over-histories is
> a mere mathematical quirk, because in these interpretations
> every path is not really taken.
'''I don't quite agree here, since many of these histories are far from semiclassical "parallel universes".'''
> 6. It simply explains Schrodinger's Cat paradox.
'''Certainly.'''
> 7. It returns Quantum Mechanics to a deterministic theory.
> God does not play dice. By doing this, it makes
> Quantum Mechanics more compatible with relativity
> which along with all other scientific theories are a
> deterministic theory.
'''Agreed.'''
> 8. It eliminates the problem of trying defining what exactly
> constitutes "measurement."
'''Agreed.'''
> 9. It eliminates Von Neumann's boundary problem: where
> to draw the line between the micro world where Quantum
> Mechanics works, and the Macro world where it doesn't.
'''Agreed.'''
> 10. It eliminates the special place for an observer and
> human consciousness.
'''Agreed.'''
> 11. It restores objective reality to the universe between
> measurements.
'''Yes.'''
> It seems Einstein's main objection with Quantum mechanics
> had to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation and not the
> theory itself.
'''I agree.'''
'''Best wishes,'''
''';-)'''
'''--------------------------------------'''
'''Prof. Max Tegmark'''
'''Dept. of Physics, MIT'''
'''70 Vassar Street Rm. 37-626B'''
'''Cambridge, MA 02139'''
Lethe claimed everything I wrote was wrong. Max Tegmark clearly disagrees.
Proponents of The Many-Worlds Interpretation claim if it were
true, it would yield ten or so benefits. I want to list all these
benefits in the article. I sent an email to a world famous
cosmologist who is a major proponent of The Many-Worlds
Interpretation, and he basically agreed with most of the points
in my list.
Some editors are strongly opposed to the Many Worlds
Interpretation, and don't want the public to know why those
who favor it do so, because that would lead to further support
for theory. They are vehemently against the theory on
principle because it can't be falsified. I understand this
objection and think it is a good objection. But I think
Ocaam's Razor favors the theory, others say otherwise.
Before I personally knew anyone had proposed the theory,
I independently realized what the theory would accomplish,
if true.
I also want the article to include the fact that the theory
was initially rejected and virtually forgotten. And I want
the article to include the fact that Everett left the field of
physics because of the poor reception it received. I think
any objective party would agree that these undisputed
facts would be of interest to the general reader.
Lethe removes whatever I contribute without bothering to read
the support I produce for my claims on the discussion page.
Instead of editing my contributions, he just removes them
in their entirety without comment and asks others to do the
same. He claimed every single thing I wrote is wrong.
He maintains this even after a world famous cosmologist
explicitly agreed with just about every point on my list.
It seems to Lethe's hostility to the theory is effecting his
judgment, or maybe he just disdains me because I am
not a physicist.
In any event, his conduct appears contrary to Wikipedia
guidelines. I don't know who Lethe is, but he has been
very insulting, hostile and patronizing from the get-go.
At present, the article contains a lot of irrelevant equations.
All the equations in the article are unnecessary because
every equation in the article is equally shared by all
interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. The value of
of Hugh Everett's theory is not in equations, because
Hugh Everett's theory does not add or subtract one
single equation from quantum mechanics. Everyone
agrees to this.
What Everett does is reinterpret the equations of quantum
mechanics. If Everett's new interpretation didn't
accomplish anything but generate countless universes,
his theory would have no value, and violate Ocaam's
Razor. The value of Hugh Everett's theory comes from
my list of benefits. These benefits are accepted by all
those who favor the theory. Leaving out one or more of
these benefits makes Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation
less desirable.
At one point, Lethe was insisting a "Paradox" could not be a "seeming contradiction," that the word "paradox" and "contradiction" mean exactly the same thing. He quoted the definition from a third-rate, obscure dictionary. I maintain that "wave-paticle duality" is a paradox even if it is not a contradiction, and even if there is an explanation for it. The mere fact that it seems paradoxical to the layman is enough to allow it to be called a "Paradox." Borh and Heisenberg called it a paradox and gave the controversial "principle of complimentarity" to explain it. Richard Feynman said it could not really be understood. The Many-Worlds Interpretation makes this paradox evaporate from the get-go. According to the Copenhagen Interpretation and "the principle of complimentarity" energy and matter act like either a wave or a particle depending on the exact manner of observation. "The principle of complimentarity" makes reality dependant on observers. Between observations, the "prinicple of complimentarity" says nothing exists. If we don't accept the principle of complimentarity or the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, we are left with a contradiction. Einstein rejected the claim that reality is dependant on our observation. He said the moon exists whether we look at it or not.
[[User:Michael D. Wolok|Michael D. Wolok]] 00:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Even if you know nothing about physics, you can understand what I am trying to do, and why I am trying to do it. In the 1920s, Neils Bohr and Warner Heisenberg created a theory we know today as Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics seemed to have some queer features that made it different from all previous scientific theories. For example, every other scientific theory is completely deterministic. Quantum mechanics is not a deterministic theory. According to quantum mechanics certain things seem to happen randomly such as the exact moment particles decay. In response to this randomness, Einstein said, "God does not place dice with the universe." Another strange fact of quantum mechanics is sometimes light acts like a wave and sometimes it acts like a particle. Likewise according to quantum mechanics, sometimes electrons act like a wave and sometimes they act like a particle. Einstein argued with Bohr and Heisenberg. He said, quantum mechanics is likely an incomplete theory, that with better understanding of the universe we would eventually eliminate the randomness of quantum mechanics. The theory that Bohr and Heisenberg created had other problems. Together Bohr and Heisenberg came up with an interpretation of quantum mechanics that addressed these issues. This interpretation by Bohr and Heisenberg became known as "the standard model" or "the Copenhagen Interpretation." This interpretation by Bohr and Heisenberg had a few problems. One, it proposed there is no such thing as objective reality between measurements. Einstein was very critical of this contention. He said the moon exists whether people look at it or not, that humans are not necessary for the universe to exist. The Copenhagen Interpretation had many other problems as well such as how to define the concept of measurement, why measurement should effect reality, where to draw the line between the microscopic world where quantum mechanics appears true, and the macroscopic world where it doesn't. The Copenhagen Interpretation led to a famous paradox called "Schrodinger's Cat Paradox." In the end, Richard Feynman a famous physicist who refined quantum mechanics said, "You are not going to be able to understand quantum mechanics, nobody can." But as time went on, physicists stopped looking at the philosophical problems the Copenhagen Interpretation seemed to present. The theory worked, and as far as most physicists were concerned that is all that mattered.
At this point, somebody by the name of Hugh Everett came up with another interpretation of quantum mechanics. According to the Copenhagen Interpretation our universe is the only universe, and nature just takes one quantum pathway out of a near infinite number of equally good quantum pathways. According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, when the universe comes to a fork in the road, it randomly takes one path or the other, it doesn't take both. According to Hugh Everett's Interpretation, when the universe meets a fork in the road with two equally good quantum pathways open to it, it takes both pathways, not just one pathway. This implies the universe splits at each quantum juncture. That is why Hugh Everett's theory is called: "The Many Worlds Interpretation." Now, if Hugh Everett's theory just predicted the existence of countless extra universes we can't ever detect, it would violate Ocaam's razor and it would be a silly theory.
However, a remarkable thing happens if Hugh Everett's theory is true: all the philosophical problems created by the Copenhagen Interpretation automatically evaporate. It is not so much that Hugh Everett's theory proposes an alternative answer to these problems, but rather the philosophical problems don't arise in the first place. If Hugh Everett's theory is true, it answers Einstein's main objections to the theory, it makes theory deterministic like all other scientific theories including special and general relativity. If Hugh Everett's theory is true, it restores objective reality between measurements. It eliminates the need to define what constitutes a measurement. It eliminates the need for the universe to have observers. It does away with the need for human consciousness. It solves the Schrodinger Cat Paradox. It more simply and naturally explains the double-slit experiment. It does away with the need for the "principle of complimenatrity" and simply and naturally explains wave-particle duality. Just about every physicist agrees with these claims. Max Tegmark a famous proponent of Hugh Everett's theory agreed with these claims. I want to put them in the article in the form of a list, because these are the reasons why those who favor Hugh Everett's theory do so.
Lethe doesn't like Hugh Everett's theory. He sees no problem with the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. A lot of physicists agree with Lethe. The philosophical problems Einstein, Schrodinger, Dirac and Feynman had with the theory don't bother them. Einstein said, Bohr and Heisenberg brainwashed a generation of physicists.
So we are at an impasse. I think the article needs to do a better job explaining what I wrote here. I think the article should include a list of all the advantages proponents of the theory claim for the theory. And I think the article should note that Hugh Everett left the field of physics because the Many Worlds Interpretation was at first ridiculed and rejected by all who saw it. I think the article should include the fact that his theory started gaining popularity in the 1980s. As time passes it has gained more and more adherents. Today most cosmologists favor the theory. Today, it is considered a mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics. Lethe doesn't want readers to know about this trend because it favors the theory, and Lethe opposes it.
I need your help to request moderation. As the article stands, now, it is essentially incomprehensible to the layman. No layman would gather the above from reading the existing article. I can't improve the article with Lethe deleting every single word I add, and disputing every single claim I make even though I supply ample support for all my claims.. If you read the article's talk page you will understand the hostility I am up against. As it stands now the entry is biased against the Many Worlds Interpretation because it does such a poor job listing the reasons why those who favor it do so.
Presumably, you can help me by bringing in more editors, and by helping me request moderation.
Warmest and kindest regards,
Michael
PS. If I had the support of other editors I would completely rewrite the article so it could be understood by everyone. I would like to note, that the article does not need to contain a single equation, since every equation found in Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation is also found in the Copenhagen Interpretation and vice versa. Of course, physics students may be curious how Everett interprets various equations in quantum mechanics, so they can be left in for physics students. But any bright physics student ought to be able to read my explanation of Hugh Everett's theory, and figure out for himself how to interpret the standard equations of quantum mechanics.
I have a special interest in this article because in the 1980s, I independently discovered Hugh Everett's theory. I had never heard Hugh Everett or his theory. I imagined the nascent universe being in the exact same situation as Buridan's ass. I asked myself, how could a perfectly logical universe devoid of free will choose one single path over a near infinite number of equally good paths. I then asked myself what would happen if the universe took every branch open to it like electricity takes every branch open to it. I immediately realized if this was the case, then all the philosophical problems posed by the Copenhagen Interpretation would automatically disappear. Many years later I learned Hugh Everett had proposed this exact idea in 1958. I discovered this by stumbling across Michael Clive Price's famous Internet Hugh Everett FAQ. It just so happens that Michael Clive Price is another editor involved in trying to edit this Wikipedia entry. I think by-and-large, Price and I agree on just about everything.
[[User:Michael D. Wolok|Michael D. Wolok]] 01:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
'''Advantages of MWI'''
Proponents of MWI believe that it offers numerous advantages over the Copenhagen Interpretation, among which are the following:
1. Quantum mechanics becomes a deterministic theory making it more compatible with the theory of relativity and all other physics theory to date which are all deterministic. The Coppenhagen Interpretation introduced indeterminacy and randomness into science. Aside from the Coppenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics there is no scientific theory that includes indeterminacy or randomness. Einstein particularly objected to this aspect of the Coppenhagen Interpretation. In response to it, he said, "God does not play dice with the universe."
2. It eliminates the "measurement problem."
3. It eliminates Von Neumann's "boundary problem": where to draw the line between the micro world where quantum mechanics applies, and the macro world where it does not. Shortly before his death in 1953, Albert Einstein wrote: "Like the moon has a definite position whether or not we look at the moon, the same must also hold for the atomic objects, as there is no sharp distinction possible between these and macroscopic objects."
4. It eliminates the special place for an observer and human consciousness.
5. It restores objective reality of the universe between measurements. Shortly before his death, Albert Einstein also wrote: "Observation cannot CREATE an element of reality like a position, there must be something contained in the complete description of physical reality which corresponds to the possibility of observing a position, already before the observation has been actually made."
6. It more simply and naturally resolves the paradox of wave-particle duality. By doing this it simply explains the double-slit experiment. Richard Feynman said, "[the double-slit experiment] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." David Deutcsh wrote: ". . . the argument for the many worlds was won with the double-slit experiment."
7. It simply explains Schrodinger's Cat paradox.
Based on the above advantages, it seems Einstein's main objections with quantum mechanics had more to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation, than with quantum mechanics itself[citation needed]. While MWI does not quite generate the kinds of worlds necessary to justify the anthropic principle, it is a step on the way to Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal and Max Tegmark's All Universe Hypothesis which do justify the anthropic principle[citation needed].
[[User:Michael D. Wolok|Michael D. Wolok]] 01:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of the way Wiki works here. It is not a question of two (or more) editors battling out their definition and interpretation of a subject—it is about finding what other sources and authorities have to say about it, and representing those. If there are conflicting authorities, then a balanced representation of the conflict should be given. If the policies and guidelines were followed, there wouldn't be this problem. Read, study, digest and apply the following: [[WP:NOR|No original research]], [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]], [[Wikipedia:The perfect article|The perfect article]], [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|Citing sources]], [[Wikipedia:Footnotes|Footnotes]]. It will make life a lot easier for all concerned. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 02:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:''I need your help to request moderation.'' See [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment]] for requesting outside opinions. See [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation]] for requesting a mediator step in. See [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration]] to request the Arbitration Committee to rule on the issue (the Arbitration Committee has the authority to ban people for bad behavior). -[[User:Lethe/sig|lethe]] <sup>[[User talk:Lethe/sig|talk]] [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit§ion=new}} +]</sup> 03:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Tyrenius wrote:
"It is not a question of two (or more) editors battling out their definition and interpretation of a subject—it is about finding what other sources and authorities have to say about it, and representing those. If there are conflicting authorities, then a balanced representation of the conflict should be given."
I agree! I have submitted many sources that support my position. Lethe seems to disagree. That is why I need mediation and moderation. The process seems complicated. I am asking for help implementing moderation.
:You sound like you need someone to hold your hand and read out loud to you the instructions on the various dispute resolution pages. Perhaps you will find someone at [[Wikipedia:Help desk]] willing to do this for you? Alternatively, you could simply reply to any of the people who have been by your talk page to offer help. -[[User:Lethe/sig|lethe]] <sup>[[User talk:Lethe/sig|talk]] [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit§ion=new}} +]</sup> 04:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Tyrenius wrote:
"If there are conflicting authorities, then a balanced representation of the conflict should be given."
That is exactly what I am looking for. Did you read what I wrote?
[[User:Michael D. Wolok|Michael D. Wolok]] 03:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
== Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Connor & User:Pitchka ==
Could someone have a little talk with [[User talk:Pitchka]] (linking there instead of the userpage, since the userpage is a redirect to [[Sideshow Cinema]], a practice which is of concern itself) about not challenging everyone [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Connor|in an AFD]] and assuming good faith? I'd do it myself, but I'm already on the hit list for nominating the article. (He's signed as "Dwain" on the AFD). <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Essjay'''</font>]] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>[[User talk:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">Talk</font>]] • [[User:Essjay/Contact|<font color="#7b68ee">Connect</font>]]</small>)</font></span> 06:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:I have left a note on the talk page about good faith and no personal attacks. However, it is a discussion, so I think it would be questionable to try to limit that. However, I have put notes on the AfD page about two of the participants who are new users. I hope this helps. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 07:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::You needent remind me it is a discussion; there was a time, before my day was filled with running checkusers and closing RfAs, that I closed hundereds of deletion disucssions each day. While it is a discussion, contributors have the right to express their opinions, and to have those opinions discussed civilly and respectfully. ''"Who the heck are you to suggest that he isn't?"'' is neither. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Essjay'''</font>]] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>[[User talk:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">Talk</font>]] • [[User:Essjay/Contact|<font color="#7b68ee">Connect</font>]]</small>)</font></span> 16:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
== New rage of Roitr ==
Please block sockpuppets [[User:Nixer.]] and [[User:Tutmosis.]] created by Roitr to impersonate me and user [[User:Tutmosis]]. There are some other sockpuppets of Roitr not blocked yet. Newest information you can find here: [[User:Roitr/sockpuppetry]]. Maybe we should semi-protect some most vandalized articles.--[[User:Nixer|Nixer]] 10:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
== New rouge admin ==
From deletion log:
* 13:06, 2 June 2006 Doc glasgow deleted "Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard" (fuck off)
Also I find this edit absolutely hilarious: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&diff=56489825&oldid=56487967]. What a great simplification of the DRV process! LOL [[User:Jni|jni]] 13:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:I don't understand wanting to go out in a blaze of infamy. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 13:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::Hardly infamy - you'll forget it soon. If I'd wanted to be disruptive , I'd have deleted DRV - but I didn't. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small><sup>ask?</sup></small>]] 13:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASyrthiss&diff=56490610&oldid=51913555 Probably not]. :( [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 13:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Blaze of minor irritation, then? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 13:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Doc rash-gow? ;) [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 13:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::everyone needs a break sometimes.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 15:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:I guess they will give his admin rights back after he returns from his "retirement". [[User:Lapinmies|Lapinmies]] 15:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::Doubtful. No objection to haveing him back as an editor but someone would probably make a case for it haveing to go through [[WP:RFA]].[[User:Geni|Geni]] 15:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that the redirect was reverted without discussion. It was hilarious as well as representative of current practice. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 15:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:Not really.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 15:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::No, I agree with Friday. '''[[User:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">Will</span>]]''' ([[WP:EA|<span style="color: green"><sup style="margin-right: -0.2em">E</sup><sub style="margin-left: -0.2em">@</sub></span>]]) <em><strong>[[User_talk:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">T</span>]]</strong></em> 15:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Me as well, that has cheered me right up after a depressing day of revision. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<font color="green">"?!"</font>]] 16:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Shouldn't it be rogue, rather than rouge, assuming he's errant and not red, that is? [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 16:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::I just assumed he wore a lot of makeup or something. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 16:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::I've noticed this spelling is spreading in wiki and wondered if I've missed something (like a transatlanticism). So we assume no one can spell rogue properly then? I thought it was a bit odd that there complaints about red admins nowadays. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 16:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::See [[WP:ROUGE]]. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 16:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::[[:Category:Rouge admins]] is more to the point ;-). [[User:NoSeptember|<font color = "green">'''NoSeptember'''</font>]] [[User talk:NoSeptember|<font color = "green"><sup>''talk''</sup></font>]] 16:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Alright, I can't let this go any longer: why on [[:Category:Rouge admins]] do we use a photograph in which the most prominent feature is <span style="font-size: 17px; font-weight: bold;">MASCARA???!?!?!</span> <bseg> <tt>[[User:RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">Radio</span>]][[Special:Contributions/RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">Kirk</span>]]</tt> <tt>[[User talk:RadioKirk|<span style="font-size: 9px; color: #161;">talk to me</span>]]</tt> 00:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Thanks. You live and learn. Another cranny of wiki revealed.:) [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 16:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoc_glasgow&diff=56530852&oldid=56530001 Barnstar'd.] Don't leave, Docco. --[[User:Avillia|<font color="#228B22">Avillia</font>]] [[User_talk:Avillia|<sup><font color="#228B22">(Avillia me!)</font></sup>]] 17:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Just gave him another barnstar. Doc, seriously, that's fucking hilarious! --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 19:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds that absolutely hilarious. --[[User:Rory096|Rory096]] 19:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:I think I stoped finding that kind of thing funny sometime during april 1st 2005.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 21:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::I'm quite sure this is pretty unique. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 23:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::I found the redirect funny (no offense, Tony). More troubling is the apparent rise in the loss of longtime editors and admins recently (not all of them good contributors, but definitely a significant portion of them). -- [[User:Kjkolb|Kjkolb]] 01:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
: No offense taken. The redirect was a reference to a recent semi-serious suggestion made on DRV. I'm sad to see Doc burn out like this; he intimated he as on the verge of giving up the other night. We do seem to have lost more than the usual number of good people lately. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 13:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Now if he'd only make [[George W. Bush]] a redirect to [[Hanlon's Razor]]....oops, I spilled the [[WP:BEANS|beans]]. :P--[[User:Ikiroid|<tt><b><font style="background:green" color="white"> The ikiroid </font></b></tt>]] 20:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
==Personal attack==
[[User:68.249.7.14|68.249.7.14]] ([[User talk:68.249.7.14|talk]]) just called me a child molester, etc. etc. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:68.249.7.14&curid=5393324&diff=56517066&oldid=56516096 here], presumably because I blocked this account for 24 hours for personal attacks. It would be inappropriate for me to revert this or to take any further action as it is directed at me personally. Could someone else take some action, please? Note that this is an IP address, not a signed-in user, but there's no evidence it is a shared IP. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] 16:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:I don't agree that it would be inappropriate for you to take action in this case. We do want to avoid the reality ''or appearance'' of conflicts of interest, certainly, but IMO this needn't apply to blatantly obvious cases. But, I've reverted and left another "don't do that" warning. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 16:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
== Appalling profanity, ethnic slurs, threats by blocked user on his talk page ==
<span class="plainlinks">[[User:AlexPU|AlexPU]] ([[User talk:AlexPU|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AlexPU|contribs]] • <font color="002bb8">[{{SERVER}}/wiki/Special:Log/move?user={{urlencode:AlexPU}} page moves]</font> • [[Special:Blockip/AlexPU|block user]] • <font color="002bb8">[{{SERVER}}/wiki/Special:Log/block?page={{urlencode:User:AlexPU}} block log]</font>)</span> has been blocked yesterday for a week by
<span class="plainlinks">[[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]] ([[User talk:Dmcdevit|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dmcdevit|contribs]] • <font color="002bb8">[{{fullurl:Special:Log/block|user={{urlencode:Dmcdevit}}}} blocks]</font> • <font color="002bb8">[{{fullurl:Special:Log/protect|user={{urlencode:Dmcdevit}}}} protects]</font> • <font color="002bb8">[{{fullurl:Special:Log/delete|user={{urlencode:Dmcdevit}}}} deletions]</font> • <font color="002bb8">[{{fullurl:Special:Log/move|user={{urlencode:Dmcdevit}}}} moves]</font>)</span>. In the block,
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:AlexPU the following reason was cited]: ''"3RR and more egregious incivility
despite many previous "final" warnings"''.
The last block was prompted by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060601202853&limit=24&target=AlexPU this activity] (pay attention to edit summaries and actual words used at the talk page entries). This isn't a new behavior from this user lately.Perhaps these two entries from recent archive of this very
board would help remind some of what's going on: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive99#Uncivility report]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators'
noticeboard/IncidentArchive97#user:AlexPU|maintaining an attack page and perpetually unleashing uncivil diatribes there as well as all around Wiki]].
The user beats the record by an amount of "FINAL warnings" he received ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlexPU&diff=28944537&oldid=28935767 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlexPU&diff=51015764&oldid=50876967 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlexPU&diff=51091469&oldid=51022329 3], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlexPU&diff=51175179&oldid=51170152 4], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlexPU&diff=51176105&oldid=51175179 5], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlexPU&diff=52205480&oldid=51176912 6], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ukrained&curid=3418780&diff=53179992&oldid=52902521 7] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlexPU&diff=52478895&oldid=52371324 8], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AlexPU&diff=next&oldid=52478895 9]) all to no effect whatsoever. Neither his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=1&offset=1&type=block&user=&page=User%3AAlexPU previous block] (for ''"Personal attacks, incivil behavior"'') did him any good. His talk, which is an attack page on his opponents, a Black Book-type list compiled by him, isn't moderated, he persisted with addressing his opponents by their ethnicities (misapplying those too), calling them vandals, propagandists and whatever.
However, [[User_talk:AlexPU#To_my_friends_and_enemies|what he posted at his talk]] ''following the very last block'' is just unspeakable. He trippled the level of his attacks and spiced them with homophobic (''"You, smelly faggot"''), ethnic (''"gypsy"'') and sexual (''"whore"'') slurs. While there is no indication that any of his opponents actually belong to any of these groups, I am calling this behavior to the admin attention.
The first thing that comes to mind is to lock his talk page as well so that he would have no chance to assault anyone anywhere at wiki-space but this may be counterproductive as it may prevent others from talking to him and would prevent him to censor his previos attacks and
the black book should he come to senses. Warning him seems useless but something needs done. Perhaps doubling the block for the post-block activity so that he sees that his actions would have further consequences? I leave it up to the community.
I don't see why we need to waste the ArbCom's time for such an obvious case. ArbCom is busy enough. I don't see any sense of an RfC since, again, this is plain enough, got sufficient exposure for many people to comment already and they commented. There seems to be a need for an action rather than talk. --<font color="FC4339">[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</font></sup> 17:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:I've used a translator as I'm not fluent in Russian, and your summary fits. I've extended it to a month, any admin is free to change the length. '''[[User:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">Will</span>]]''' ([[WP:EA|<span style="color: green"><sup style="margin-right: -0.2em">E</sup><sub style="margin-left: -0.2em">@</sub></span>]]) <em><strong>[[User_talk:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">T</span>]]</strong></em> 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::Why not just get it over with and ban him? --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 18:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm not going to support an acclamation ban at this point. If he continues, I'll support acclamation banning '''[[User:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">Will</span>]]''' ([[WP:EA|<span style="color: green"><sup style="margin-right: -0.2em">E</sup><sub style="margin-left: -0.2em">@</sub></span>]]) <em><strong>[[User_talk:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">T</span>]]</strong></em> 21:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
== http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:207.73.109.2 ==
Vandal was at it again today. I'm relatively new and don't
know exactly what to do by way of reporting or acting,
but presumably somebody does?
CAR
:I've blocked the user for 31 hours [[User:JoJan|JoJan]] 20:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
== User: Haizum ==
Could someone please look at the problem on [[Laura Ingraham]] involving user [[User:Haizum|Haizum]]? 3RR doesn't begin to describe this one — if he disagrees with a fact, he says the link doesn't work, and has from the beginning accompanied his reversals with personal attacks. The history of the dispute is spelled out on the Talk page, as well as (unfortunately) my own User page, where Haizum has left several profane messages (now deleted but part of the history). I have asked him to stay off my User page but without success. On the Talk page, Haizum is now attributing a quote to me which is false and defamatory.
I have made ''thousands'' of edits on Wikipedia and have never encountered a user like this. I'm afraid Haizum has exhausted my patience. What can be done? Please help. [[User:Sandover|Sandover]] 20:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:Haizum has been blocked for edit warring and incivility. If he isn't prepared to accept the subjects '''official site''' as a reliable source, it's teetering onto vandalism '''[[User:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">Will</span>]]''' ([[WP:EA|<span style="color: green"><sup style="margin-right: -0.2em">E</sup><sub style="margin-left: -0.2em">@</sub></span>]]) <em><strong>[[User_talk:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">T</span>]]</strong></em> 21:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::I think [[User: Haizum]] may have been unblocked, by [[user:Tawker]]. This was the editor's fourth block, and was scheduled at 3 days. I just got a crude email from him because I trimmed some verbatim copyrighted source material from a talk page. I think [[User:Sceptre]]'s block was warranted and minor relative to the behavior and history. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]]
:::The block was originally 48 hours. I recieved an email 10 minutes after the block saying:
{{"|Get real. Sandover started the personal attacks and is the one warring my edits while I have the courtesy to leave the disputed content up with a tag.
Furthermore, the protection is not supposed to be an endorsement of a particular version, SO WHY DID YOU REMOVE THE DISPUTED TAG?
This is unacceptable, and you can bet I will make sure it is known that you endorsed a version, contrary to policy.
Also, oh wise admin, the dispute tag was there for a part of the section that Sandover isn't even invloved in.
Shape up, it looks like you're on your way to arbitration.}}
It was followed just a few minutes later by this email:
{{"|Oh great, you're from the UK. So you've the protected Laura Ingraham page THE WAY YOU SEE FIT, and now I suppose you're going to try to get involved in the content even though she has no meaning in the UK.
Great, I'm sure this article will be al jazeerific once you're finished with it.
Why don't you tack on another 24 hours to the subjective block you just applied big man?}}
I was happy to tack twenty-four hours on for him. About eight hours ago, I received another email:
{{"|
From "Page Protection Policy":
1."These abilities are only to be used in limited circumstances as protected pages are considered harmful."
2."Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism."
3."If a page is protected because of an edit war, please do not ask for it to be protected in some other version than it currently is. A protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Instead, go to the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute."
1. You protected a page because of a Dispute tag. 99% of the disputed section was left unchanged, yet you claim I was warring...for ADDING material.
2. You edited the page the way you wanted to see it before you protected it. I will make sure this is burned into your record.
3. You made no attempt to resolve the dispute. You protected the page in its POV form after DELIBERATELY removing the Dispute tag.
You failed.
You failed.
You failed.}}
This haD triggered me to lengthen the block to a week. '''[[User:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">Will</span>]]''' ([[WP:EA|<span style="color: green"><sup style="margin-right: -0.2em">E</sup><sub style="margin-left: -0.2em">@</sub></span>]]) <em><strong>[[User_talk:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">T</span>]]</strong></em> 11:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
== User: Sandover ==
We all apreciate Sandover's thousands of contributions, but that does not give this user a pass to insert POV material into a topic which I am clearly more familiar with. I urge you to see the talk page and ''read it thoroughly'', not skim it. Regardless of this user's contributions, and regardless of mine, I am still the pillar of logic and context with regards to the [[Laura Ingraham]] page. I welcome Administrative assistance. [[User:Haizum|Haizum]] 21:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I have now read Haizum's discussion page in detail — I confess that I didn't know his history before reporting my particular encounter with him. Since the latest block, Haizum has deleted a great deal of unflattering talk and commentary relating to previous incidents (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHaizum&diff=56647471&oldid=56218675 here] for comparison). While I'm not an Admin, I do know human nature — as I see it, any user who has shown this level of dishonesty and disingenuousness, and who has been blocked four times(!) for similar incidents, is unlikely to change his habits in the future. How will a less experienced Wikipedist, or perhaps someone just beginning to explore this medium, deal with Haizum in the future? Very possibly by giving up on the medium altogether, which would be a great shame. Just my $.02. [[User:Sandover|Sandover]] 17:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
== Most recent edits by [[User:Cyde]] ==
: ''Moved to [[User talk:Cyde]]. Please ''always'' take concerns about user behavior to their talk pages in the first instance unless there is an urgent problem.''
== [[User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg]] ==
Hi, I blocked this user for three hours because of bad faith page moves. [[User:Shanel|Shanel]] is helping clean up the mess.--[[User:Kungfuadam|<font color="Blue">Kungfu</font> <font color="Red">Adam</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:Kungfuadam|<font color="Green">talk</font>]])</sup> 22:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:I'll leave it to people who know more about Hebrew names to determine, but genuine vandalism (as opposed to mistaken boldness) in pagemoves is worth a block a lot longer than 3 hours. If he is a good faith user he needs to be educated about Willy on Wheels. [[User:The Land|The Land]] 22:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
==Legal threats by [[User:134.134.136.3]]==
{{vandal|134.134.136.3}} has threatened to bring a slander case against me and anyone who particpates in the AfD discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Lacche]]. If you look at the history of [[Justin Lacche]] it looks as if he has also goes by [[User:Lacjc126]]. I don't feel that anything in the AfD can possibly be considered slander, and ask that an admin deals with his legal threats. [[User:VegaDark|VegaDark]] 22:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked the IP for a month. See if you can get a checkuser to verify if the two users are the same '''[[User:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">Will</span>]]''' ([[WP:EA|<span style="color: green"><sup style="margin-right: -0.2em">E</sup><sub style="margin-left: -0.2em">@</sub></span>]]) <em><strong>[[User_talk:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">T</span>]]</strong></em> 22:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:Sorry, I'm going to unblock. [[WP:LEGAL]] suggests that blocking is not appropriate for a simple legal threat. I have left a sufficiently clear warning on the IP's talk page. [[User:The Land|The Land]] 22:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:*TheLand, I don't think you're reading this correctly. If you could review WP:LEGAL a bit more carefully, I think it'll be more clear. Blocking is noted as likely for legal threats, and we have a long tradition of blocking such users. I have reblocked the user for a month. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 23:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::Don't we have a policy not to block IP addresses for long periods unless they are open proxies? [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] 14:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::: Define "long periods"? 1 month isn't that long. The purpose of not blocking for long is if the IP is dynamic and likely to impact another user who may then inherit that address. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 14:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::OK, fair enough. '''[[User:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">Will</span>]]''' ([[WP:EA|<span style="color: green"><sup style="margin-right: -0.2em">E</sup><sub style="margin-left: -0.2em">@</sub></span>]]) <em><strong>[[User_talk:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">T</span>]]</strong></em> 23:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Note: The subject in the article has now e-mailed me 4 times demanding my name and stating "Please save me the time of researching your real name and just tell me your name", "I will continue to press every day until you reveal your identity, so do us both a favor and save the time." and "Obviously, some in Bexel will know you, so there is no point avoiding this...as I certainly won't drop this matter, so do the fair thing and take off the mask.". I obviously don't intend to reveal any personal information to him, but I find it rather unsettling that he is determined to find my real identity. [[User:VegaDark|VegaDark]] 02:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:In my opinion, this justifies a longer block. His initial threats were against VegaDark and he continues to threaten this user through email. Is there any way we can confirm this? --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] 15:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Lacjc26 is the same as 134 due to an email I recieved earlier today. '''[[User:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">Will</span>]]''' ([[WP:EA|<span style="color: green"><sup style="margin-right: -0.2em">E</sup><sub style="margin-left: -0.2em">@</sub></span>]]) <em><strong>[[User_talk:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">T</span>]]</strong></em> 11:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't we find HIS phone number and tell him to fuck off? We can NOT allow this kind of abuse. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 19:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
==Liftarn & SirIsaacBrock==
===[[User:Liftarn]]===
{{vandal|Liftarn}} this individual removed my comments from the talk pages of [[Jew]] and [[Holocaust]], would you please block his account for 24 hours, thank you [[User:SirIsaacBrock|SirIsaacBrock]] 21:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked '''[[User:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">Will</span>]]''' ([[WP:EA|<span style="color: green"><sup style="margin-right: -0.2em">E</sup><sub style="margin-left: -0.2em">@</sub></span>]]) <em><strong>[[User_talk:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">T</span>]]</strong></em> 22:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::Without reviewing the diffs on this case, I '''highly''' recommend that this block be reviewed as from my own personal experience relative to [[User:SirIsaacBrock]] it is likely that [[User:Liftarn]] was removing commentary of a personal attack nature left by [[User:SirIsaacBrock]]. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 00:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::As a subscriber to the WikiEn-I mailing list I was independently contacted by a fellow editor who had this to say:
:::<table><tr><td>SirIsaacBrock is up to his usual self. People who remove his comment -- the same comment you warned him about! -- are getting listed by him as vandals on the administrator noticeboard, and are getting blocked from editing wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Liftarn This is the same stunt he pulled on me in the past. If you are an administrator, any help you can offer to users like Liftarn (I dont know liftarn, and have never crossed his path until 5 minutes ago) and others who are getting blocked because SirIsaacBrock labels them as "spammers" and "vandals" is much appreciated.
</td></td></table> [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 00:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::::These are the diffs in question: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=56529296 Talk:The Holocaust], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jew&diff=prev&oldid=56529415 Talk:Jew]. In both cases SirIsaacBrock posted the same message trying to find people who would support him adding the category [[:Category:Anti-Semitic people]] to [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]]. He also suggested that recipients of the [[:Image:IslamicBarnstar.png|Islamic Barnstar]] were anti-Semites. I think perhaps the blocks are in the wrong place here. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 00:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Actually, see further discussion below. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 01:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
===Personal attacks by [[User:SirIsaacBrock]] regarding Barnstar group===
Greetings, [[User:SirIsaacBrock]] is in the process of personally attacking anyone displaying a barnstar that is awarded to those who've made beneficial edits relative to topics on Islam.
He refers to such individuals as anti-semites. He has been impinging upon the reputations of those displaying the Islamic topics barnstar in several talk pages, most related to Jewish topics: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Anti-Semitic_people&diff=prev&oldid=56476488] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jew&diff=prev&oldid=56476534] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=56476596] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jew&diff=prev&oldid=56476670].
I became aware of this thanks to the currently blocked [[User:Liftarn]] (due to a WP:ANI report filed by [[User:SirIsaacBrock]]?) and proceeded to politely warn [[User:SirIsaacBrock]] to not make such statements relative to [[WP:NPA]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASirIsaacBrock&diff=56544736&oldid=56340735]:
::<table bgcolor="#EEEEEE"><tr><td>Greetings, It's been brought to my attention that you are spreading word in a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] fashion that those who've recieved a barnstar for their contributions on Islamic topics are anti-semites. I highly recommend that you 1. cease from making false accusations immediately and 2. remove all previous talk pages messages saying as much. If you do not follow this advice you will likely face being blocked as a Wikipedia editor. Sincerely, Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 19:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)</td></tr></table>
He responded with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANetscott&diff=56568336&oldid=56477436]:
:<table bgcolor="#EEEEAA"><tr><td>Ki$$ - U know what u can kiss and don't post anymore spam on my talk page ! [[User:SirIsaacBrock|SirIsaacBrock]] 21:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)</td></tr></table>
And was subsequently warned by [[User:Timothy Usher]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASirIsaacBrock&diff=56570153&oldid=56544736]
::<table bgcolor="#EEEEBB"><tr><td>Mr.Brock, in reference to your recent [[WP:CIVIL|incivil]] post on Netscott's page, and the posts to which he refers above: [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] are not allowed on Wikipedia. It's that simple. Don't make them.[[User:Timothy Usher|Timothy Usher]] 22:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)</td></tr></table>
Whereupon he removed my warning and [[User:Timothy Usher]]'s warning with personal attack editorial commentary:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SirIsaacBrock&diff=prev&oldid=56570564 "Remove anti-Semitic spammers"]
And he subsequently "warns" [[User:Timothy Usher]] re Timothy Usher's NPA warning :
::<table bgcolor="#EEEEAA"><tr><td>Warning - Please do not post any further comments on my talk page or you will be reported. I am not interested in reading McPinions on any topic. Cordially [[User:SirIsaacBrock|SirIsaacBrock]] 22:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)</td></tr></table>
Now ordinarily I'd request that this user be warned but as I've personally warned him and he's been warned independently by [[User:Timothy Usher]] at this point he should be warned and blocked to prevent his further personal attacks. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 00:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:*[[User:SirIsaacBrock]] has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASirIsaacBrock&diff=56590076&oldid=56570564 notified] of this report. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 00:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
<s>I've blocked him for one week, becuase it seemed to me pretty aggravated and nasty. However, I have one of the barnstars on my page, so if anyone wants to unblock or shorten the block, I will not object. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 00:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)</s>
GTBacchus has blocked him for two days; I support that. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 00:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:I support either block. From all the evidence you've shown, it's quite clear this was neither a misunderstanding nor a one-time slipup. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 00:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::I have been independently contacted by an additional user on WikiEn-I about [[User:SirIsaacBrock]] (see [[User:Liftarn]]'s [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Liftarn|report]] above). I'm going to have to agree with [[User:InShaneee]] and say that the week long block should be re-instated (save the threat of a wheel war). [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 00:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I've restored the one week block. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 01:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Mr.Brock refuses to apologize for his actions, reiterates his contention that Tom harrison is an anti-semite, and pledges to return after his block, presumably to resume his personal attacks[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SirIsaacBrock&diff=56591098&oldid=56590890]. Additionally, he continually removes warnings from his talk page, calling them “spam”, and those who placed them “spammers”[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SirIsaacBrock&diff=56591216&oldid=56591139], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SirIsaacBrock&diff=next&oldid=56591233], while branding Tom harrison as “incompetent”[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SirIsaacBrock&diff=prev&oldid=56591450].
He should be prevented from editting his user talk page during this period, to prevent him from removing relevant warnings, and as it has itself become itself a forum for personal attacks.[[User:Timothy Usher|Timothy Usher]] 01:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:Thank you bainer for your diligence in this matter. :-) [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 01:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::I've now unblocked Liftarn also. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 01:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:I've protected his talk page; whether he should be blocked indefinitely, as he seems to be requesting, is an open question. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 01:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Well judging by his final [[Special:Contributions/SirIsaacBrock|editorial commentary]] and talk page comments this user may indeed be incorrigible and perhaps should be given the permanent block he's requesting... I suspect he'll show up as a sockpuppet shortly regardless. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 01:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC
:The attacks seem unusually child-like. Are we sure there is not more than one person using this account? Not that it matters much I guess. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 01:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::I hate to admit it but the possibility of child-POV editing had crossed my mind. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 01:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure what you're saying, can you reword that for my simple brain? =D ANYWAY, '''Holy. Crap.''' Maybe he suffers from some mental problem? To go from a content dispute to a full-out "tantrum" (sorry) seems suspicious. Again, I don't even know why I'm talking about this since it hardly matters.--[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 01:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::* I was just commenting that this user's commentary was indeed much like that from the point of view (POV) of a child. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 01:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
There was still a block conflict on the log, with a one week followed by an indefinite. I just unblocked and reblocked indefinitely. Based on everything I've seen, that's appropriate. If he ever decides he wants to chill out a little bit and edit constructively, he can always email someone. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 01:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks. I'm pretty sure no one is going to contest it =( --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 01:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
There is an open question at [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests for comment/WritersCramp]] about whether [[User:WritersCramp]] and [[User:SirIsaacBrock]] are the same editor. There was a suggestion that checkuser be applied to verify or refute a sock-puppet association (from 20 March) but no result of the checkuser inquiry was reported. My thought is that it would be useful at this point to complete the checkuser test and report the results. User:Ceyockey (<small>''[[User talk:Ceyockey|talk to me]]''</small>) 13:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:Checkuser is only for difficult cases. This one is not. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|«<small>Talk</small>»]] 20:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::Unless you check the IP addresses you are just guessing. I wouldn't think that one would want to come to the conclusion 'well, these two users sound alike so they must be the same person' when tools are available to take some of the guesswork out of the equation. User:Ceyockey (<small>''[[User talk:Ceyockey|talk to me]]''</small>) 20:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Even a brief perusal of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WritersCramp&action=history history] of [[User:WritersCramp]]'s talk page shows this to be the same user as [[User:SirIsaacBrock]], regardless of what IP(s) he is able to edit from. And even if by some infinetessimal chance it ''weren't'' the same user, [[User:WritersCramp]] is disruptive enough on his own to merit banishment.[[User:Timothy Usher|Timothy Usher]] 21:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Fair enough. There is always a point of diminishing returns and I do usually err on the side of excessive evidence, which isn't a bad thing as long as it doesn't stand in the way of consensual progress and community activity. Regards, User:Ceyockey (<small>''[[User talk:Ceyockey|talk to me]]''</small>) 01:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
== Indef ban of Almost Famous ==
I have indefinitely banned [[User:Almost Famous]]. The major reason was that he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Almost_Famous&diff=56564097&oldid=56314527 emailed a threat] to [[User:Econrad]], but what's more he was confirmed via that email as being [[User:Ericnorcross]] evading a ban. See [[:Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Ericnorcross]]. I'm leaving this note here because I'm pretty sure there's going to be off-wiki harassment going on. [[User talk:RasputinAXP|<font color="#FFFFFF" style="background: maroon;"> RasputinAXP </font>]] [[Special:Contributions/RasputinAXP|<small>c</small>]] 02:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Question''' Has his IP also been blocked? Seems to me another of his socks ({{User|Katherinejohnson}}) got it unblocked the last time by claiming it was public. (That ID also claimed elsewhere to be his roommate, but the edit history and behavior pattern was too similar. Besides, two people like that could not cohabitate without homicide resulting.) [[User:Fan-1967|Fan1967]] 02:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
**Without a checkuser we can't pop the IP address either. I'm inclined to ban "Katherine" as well. [[User talk:RasputinAXP|<font color="#FFFFFF" style="background: maroon;"> RasputinAXP </font>]] [[Special:Contributions/RasputinAXP|<small>c</small>]] 02:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
***[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Ericnorcross.2C_Katherinejohnson.2C_Almost_Famous.2C_Living_large RFCU] has been entered. [[User talk:RasputinAXP|<font color="#FFFFFF" style="background: maroon;"> RasputinAXP </font>]] [[Special:Contributions/RasputinAXP|<small>c</small>]] 02:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
****I've had some experience with him when he wasn't logged in. He's just as charming then. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=69.112.108.167] - [[User:Fan-1967|Fan1967]] 02:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
****'''Comment''' on RFCU results. My, Eric has been an extremely busy boy. Buh-bye. [[User:Fan-1967|Fan1967]] 17:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Do we have a log of Wikimails sent? --[[User:Avillia|<font color="#228B22">Avillia</font>]] [[User_talk:Avillia|<sup><font color="#228B22">(Avillia me!)</font></sup>]] 17:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
==Vote-stacking==
{{vandal|Wombdpsw}} is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_3:16&diff=prev&oldid=56563916 soliciting votes] on the talk page of [[Talk:John_3:16|John 3:16]] to influence the outcome of TdF-vote of [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_25#Template:John316|Template:John316]]. -- [[User:ActiveSelective|ActiveSelective]] 02:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:No solicitation of any kind has been made. It was only after some editors objected to my user box on the grounds that I was the only one using it (and other grounds), that I made a single post to a single talk page mentioning the existence of the template. Frankly, in my view, ActiveSelective is flat out twisting the truth. He knows darn well that '''his''' post here is far more likely to attract "voters" than my single post on an article talk page. This kind of blatant harassment by Active reeks. <span style="border: 1px solid #000000; text-align:center; background: #FFFFFF">→ [[User:Wombdpsw|Wombdpsw]] - [[User talk:Wombdpsw|'''@''']] ←</span> 03:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::I don't see any reason to construe one post on one talk page as disruptive spamming. The template in question will be fine, in user space, where they're setting up directories already, per [[Wikipedia:The German solution]]. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 03:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Resolution: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATemplates_for_deletion%2FLog%2F2006_May_25&diff=56617073&oldid=56609705 see here]. And please, Womdbspws, I've been very civil with you. Stop picking on me. -- [[User:ActiveSelective|ActiveSelective]] 05:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Active, if you think you are being "picked on" I'd like to know why you think that. Please explain on my talk page. <span style="border: 1px solid #000000; text-align:center; background: #FFFFFF">→ [[User:Wombdpsw|Wombdpsw]] - [[User talk:Wombdpsw|'''@''']] ←</span> 06:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
== Possible sockpuppet evading block? ==
[[User talk:Mr. Cookie|Mr. Cookie]], from what I understand, is a suspected sockpuppet of the indef-blocked user [[User:Bugman94|Bugman94]]. I personally don't have any evidence to support this, but this user has gone off and already disrupted the several pages quite a bit. From spamming <nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki> messages on his talk page despite requests to stop doing so to, putting needless <nowiki> <s> </nowiki> tags, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R._L._Stine&diff=prev&oldid=56601345 blatant copyright violations], it is my personal opinion that this is an experienced user just trying to make a scene and disrupt as much as they can as possible. An assertion that the user may be a possible sockpuppet can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Electrified_mocha_chinchilla#User:Mr._Cookie here],
I personally am overwhelmed with the mass of edits done by this user in such a short amount of time and attempts at trying to calm down the user have failed. The user's burst of knowledge of policy, even though they claim to be new to Wikipedia, is misleading as they have jumped into putting cases into the [[WP:MEDCAB|mediation cabal]] concerning the user who accuses them of being a sockpuppet. It is quite possible that these beliefs are unfounded and this is just an over-eager new user, but I'm just hoping an administrator can look into this matter as I am overwhelmed at the moment and have absolutely no idea where to proceed, heh. Thanks. [[User:Cowman109|Cowman109]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User talk:Cowman109|Talk]]</font></sup> 02:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::The user has now moved to vandalizing the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases&diff=56602301&oldid=56601944 case list] at the Mediation Cabal. [[User:Cowman109|Cowman109]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User talk:Cowman109|Talk]]</font></sup> 02:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Looking up the situation a bit, it seems the indef-blocked user is known for adding information that is a copyright violation. Mr. Cookie has already done this twice to the same article as linked above. [[User:Cowman109|Cowman109]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User talk:Cowman109|Talk]]</font></sup> 02:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::: Since I am the one who originally was suspicious about this, I'll state my evidence. Posts from both accounts are very much similar, often lacking a signature. Second of all, a review of [[User:Bugman94|Bugman94]]'s original user page clearly states that the user is twelve years of age; [[User:Mr. Cookie|Mr. Cookie]] also states he is of the same age. Third of all, this user has had a so called "grudge" against me since I first began warning him at his former user talk page [[User talk:Bugman94|here]]. As a result, he used to vandalize and/or blank posts he made on my talk page. Well, the same thing occured on my talk page under the [[User:Mr. Cookie|Mr. Cookie]] account (it can all be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Electrified_mocha_chinchilla&action=history here]. I'm telling you, this is the same person. He has other screen names, such as [[User:GreenGoo]], which have also been banned because of this same reason (sock puppetry). --[[User:Electrified mocha chinchilla|EMC]] 03:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::I have just found that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bugman94&oldid=52016623 this version] of Bugman's userpage and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mr._Cookie#Ok this short discussion] clearly show that Cookie is the same user as Bugman. [[User:Cowman109|Cowman109]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User talk:Cowman109|Talk]]</font></sup> 03:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::::: Good find. That's exactly what I was referring to. So it still stands: one blatant vandalism and this user is banned. --[[User:Electrified mocha chinchilla|EMC]] 03:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
== 3RR and POV reverts by anonymous IP user ==
Hi all - I request you to please pay attention to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_nationalism&curid=319038&diff=56596135&oldid=56568011], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_nationalism&diff=prev&oldid=56562532], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.159.84.202&diff=prev&oldid=56579717]. This anon IP fellow insists on making blatantly POV edits to [[Hindu nationalism]], and in turn accuses me of "vandalism," and me having a problem with the "truth and Hindu communalism." I'm afraid I got dangerously close to breaking the 3RR law myself, but I had to make the necessary corrections. I've warned him about [[WP:NPA]] and 3RR. I request administrator attention with this anon IP, whose next move might demand blocking. [[User:Rama's Arrow|Rama's Arrow]] 02:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:The changes appear to be markedly POV. I'm adding an additional personal attack comment on the IP talk page -- [[User:Samir (The Scope)|Samir]] 02:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
== Strange message left encoded in bold ==
I know this is a bit out of the scope of the page, but it is vandalism.
A user recently used bold lettering to spell out "sirgrantisgay" on the [[WP:VandalProof]] page. Does anyone know who/it this refers to and if any user has said that before? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof&curid=4595101&diff=56617683&oldid=56617412 this is the edit] I thought I might at least bring it to your attention in case it's a vandal comming back =( --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 07:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:It was funny, give him a surreality barnstar. [[User:Lapinmies|Lapinmies]] 08:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::We shouldn't be encouraging vandalism. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 16:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I recently approved [[User:SirGrant]] to use VandalProof, and that IP had been warned '''by SirGrant''' for vandalism. [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]</sup> 17:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SirGrant&diff=prev&oldid=56615603 this] for some more info on our anon and SirGrant. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">You Know Who</font>]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
==[[User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington 2]]==
This (new?) user account, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington 2, just today removed a comment from [[Talk:Braveheart]] which is presumably regarded as vandalism. Could you check the doings of this new account, as I see a risk of it being some sleeper account planted to later cause havoc and/or a sockpuppet (don't know whether there are already accounts Sir Nicholas 3, Sir Nicholas 4...) [[User:Maed|Maed]] 10:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:The name is the result of a name change, but I don't know why he's using the '2' account. Mistake, maybe? --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 12:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::[[User_talk:Shreshth91#Hi._Thanks_for_your_concern.|This]] might be helpful. Maybe the revert ''was'' a mistake. <b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:Srikeit|it]]</b><sup>'''<span style="color:#800080">(</span>'''[[User_talk:Srikeit|<span style="color:#18186b;cursor:help;">talk</span>]] ¦ [[Special:Emailuser/Srikeit|<span style="color:#18186b;cursor:help;">✉</span>]]'''<span style="color:#800080">)</span>'''</sup>'' 13:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I am so very sorry about this. I forgot to check which I account I was actually logged in. I was in the process of testing my monobook.js. I regret for any kind of inconvinience that I might have caused and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABraveheart&diff=56641269&oldid=56640325 revert] which I made was a mistake; as I could not understand what ''wead snippet'' meant. Regards, --[[User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|Nearly Headless Nick]] 14:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
== [[User:SpamhausSucks]][[User:ImAnElderlyHandicappedHomosexual.DontBlockMeThatsDiscrimination.]] ==
Sort? --[[User:Quentin Smith|Qu]][[User:Quentin Smith/Greene|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]][[User:Quentin Smith|ntin]] [[User_talk:Quentin Smith|Smith]] 17:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:IAEHH.DBMTD blocked by Cyde. '''[[User:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">Will</span>]]''' ([[WP:EA|<span style="color: green"><sup style="margin-right: -0.2em">E</sup><sub style="margin-left: -0.2em">@</sub></span>]]) <em><strong>[[User_talk:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">T</span>]]</strong></em> 17:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
== [[Mike Jones]] ==
It appears some users continue to add a telephone number to this article, with the comment "His number is open to the public at all times". Even if Mr. Jones' number is freely accessible in the phone book, or even on his web site, and even if he actually ''wants strangers to call him'', I don't think this is appropriate information for a biography. Could I get some more people to watchlist this page? — <small>Jun. 3, '06</small><tt> '''[19:12] <<u class=plainlinks>[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freak]|[{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit§ion=new}} talk]</u>>'''</tt>
:Done. Thanks for taking the time to alert us. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 19:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
== Block By [[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]] ==
I was blocked by this admin for spamming, which I admit I did without knowing the policy on this. I have appologized for this in my talk page. And didn't post such messages after being warned, this admin simply didn't consider this, I dont know whether he/she should've considered this. But I feel this is very unfair, though my account was unblocked still one of my IP is blocked. [[User:Mystìc|<span style="color:white;background:#008"> <span style="background:#009">«<span style="background:#00a">₪<span style="background:#00b">M<span style="background:#00c">ÿ<span style="background:#00e">š</span>†</span>í</span>c</span>₪</span>» </span>]] <sup><font size="-2">[[User talk:Mystìc|(T)]]</font></sup> 20:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
==[[User:Hganesan]] using sockpuppets to circumvent block==
[[User:Hganesan]] continues to use sockpuppets to circumvent blocks placed on him. I believe he is now using [[User:Bucsrsafe]] as a sockpuppet, and also posting messages between the users to give the impression of multiple users. The choice of edits on [[Steve Nash]] is very suspicious. [[User:Simishag|Simishag]] 20:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Hganesan], he's supposed to be blocked for a week, which doesn't end until tomorrow. Was he unblocked? [[User:Simishag|Simishag]] 20:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[[User:12.134.204.214]] (previously identified as a sockpuppet of [[User:Hganesan]]) removes sockpuppet tags from [[User:Hganesan]] and [[User:Bucsrsafe]] within a few minutes of each other. What an amazing coincidence. [[User:Simishag|Simishag]] 20:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
And now he's tagged me as a sockpuppet of [[User:Downwards]]. This is [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]] behavior, an attempt to smear me for no reason other than discovering his use of other accounts to push his agenda. I have posted virtually all of my contributions under my own account (with the exception of a few that might be under an IP when I wasn't logged in). I have never been blocked or attempted to circumvent any policies by using other accounts. I stand by my work. [[User:Simishag|Simishag]] 20:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Moving discussion from AN/3RR. I believe it was appropriate to post there since another edit war started as soon as he was unblocked but I will keep the discussion here. [[User:Simishag|Simishag]] 21:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
original discussion from AN/3RR:
===[[User:Simishag]] is accusing me again and I am angry about this===
[[User:Simishag]] continuously is claiming [[User:Bucsrsafe]] is me when he is not. Please warn Simishag. I am very upset he is wrongly accusing me. Please tell the other admins about this. It is frustrating. He is just upset that there are people who want to get rid of the extreme nash bias on this site. I just logged on here for the first time in over a week and took time off, now I come back here and this guy is falsely accusing me. It is frustrating.
[[User:Hganesan|Hganesan]] 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
Reported by: [[User:hganesan|hganesan]]
:Please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Hganesan_and_User:Bucsrsafe] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hganesan_using_sockpuppets_to_circumvent_block]. [[User:Hganesan]] and his many IP addresses have been reported and blocked by at least 3 other admins in the last 2 weeks for repeated edit wars, use of sockpuppets, uncivil and threatening statements... all of which is centered around an agenda on [[Steve Nash]]. He has now gone so far as to tag my user page as a sockpuppet despite the total lack of evidence to support that. I stand by my reports and I think the evidence shows a pattern of rude, petty and uncivil behavior. [[User:Simishag|Simishag]] 21:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah last TWO WEEKS we're talking about. YOU simi, tagged MY username and said I had abusive sockpuppets. That is why I tagged yours. I took OVER a WEEK off. Now you are accusing me again. There is no rude, uncivil behavior RECENTLY. Stop it. Face reality.[[User:Hganesan|Hganesan]] 21:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
:Err, what? There was no uncivil behavior because you were blocked? And now that you're unblocked, it's started again? What a coincidence. Also, I wasn't the only one who tagged your username. I did a fair amount of research to track down all your sockpuppets and keep an eye on them in case you came back. Now you've admitted that you tagged my page just for revenge, to get back at me for tracking down all this evidence. That's vandalism. [[User:Simishag|Simishag]] 21:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:I see that you have removed the sockpuppet tag from my user page, which perhaps shows some degree of maturity but might just be covering up evidence of your vandalism. The relevant diff is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASimishag&diff=56713498&oldid=56713044].
Listen you call yourself mature??? When you just accuse someone of being a sockpuppet of mine just because he posts similar facts to what I posted??? You are lying, you call that mature?? It's very uncivil and immature. I just got back at you. here is the vandalism BTW he FIRST put on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hganesan&diff=56713872&oldid=56712336
I just came back today and he just put that back on. VANDALISM. [[User:Hganesan|Hganesan]] 21:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
What you are doing is uncivil, accusing him of being a sockpupeteer. That is what's called UNCIVIL. ALSO, deleting EVERYTHING and all the facts is uncivil, and you edit warred with the other guy too just recently on that page. That is also called UNCIVIL. [[User:Hganesan|Hganesan]] 21:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
:If you didn't have a long and illustrious history already, maybe I'd look the other way. But your actions are simply too obvious and too obnoxious to ignore. I made only 2 reverts to [[Steve Nash]] today, specifically for the purpose of avoiding an edit war. Deleting content is perfectly civil if the content is biased, incorrect, uncited, or otherwise doesn't belong. If you don't like having your content edited, maybe you shouldn't edit here. Again, I stand by my work, and I accept the changes of others, but I will not sit quietly while you push your agenda by using fake accounts, fallacious reasoning and [[argumentum ad nauseum]] on the talk pages. [[User:Simishag|Simishag]] 21:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I just deleted it, and SIMISHAG IS LYING, that is why I originally put one on there. I was supposed to be unblocked on the 29th. IF YOU CHECK, my last post on this account was on the 19th, and another user said my block was extended a week from the 22nd. Another lie. He is just wanting to promote his agenda and he doesn't want people to get rid of the propaganda he has spilled on the articles. It is frustrating. I am trying to contribute now that I took OVER A WEEK off and he is accusing me like this. VERY uncivil. [[User:Hganesan|Hganesan]] 21:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
:According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Hganesan], you were blocked by [[User:Jossi]] for 1 week starting at 22:06, 28 May 2006. That means your block isn't up until 22:06, 4 Jun 2006 (about 24 hours from now). [[User:Simishag|Simishag]] 21:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Long history??? I just started editing again TODAY. And you come here and complaing for no reason. Liar. You lied. [[User:Hganesan|Hganesan]] 21:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
:Where did I lie? Your "long history" includes 10 blocks by 6 admins over the last 3 weeks (since 16 May 2006). That's just for [[User:Hganesan]] and doesn't include any of the IPs you used. I don't think taking a week off means we should ignore that history. [[User:Simishag|Simishag]] 21:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
You lied because that is not my sockpuppet. How many in the last week liar? That guy is not me, you lied. My other sockpuppets were ALL IPs from berkeley, TWO WEEKS AGO. Liar. [[User:Hganesan|Hganesan]] 22:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
Yeah and you also lied by saying my block was not up. It ended on the 29th, SEVERAL days ago. Another lie.[[User:Hganesan|Hganesan]] 22:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
===[[User:Simishag|Simishag]] and his lies===
He is continuously claiming User:Bucsrsafe is me when he is not. Please warn Simishag. I am very upset he is wrongly accusing me. Please tell the other admins about this. It is frustrating. He is just upset that there are people who want to get rid of the extreme nash bias on this site. I just logged on here for the first time in over a week and took time off, now I come back here and this guy is falsely accusing me. It is frustrating. Hganesan 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
YOU simi, tagged MY username and said I had abusive sockpuppets. That is why I tagged yours. I took OVER a WEEK off. Now you are accusing me again. There is no rude, uncivil behavior RECENTLY. Stop it. Face reality.Hganesan 21:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
BTW give me an example of uncivil behavior in my POSTS from today. you cannot. You and the others vandalized the entire steve nash page while i was gone. Now I'm back and you start accusing someone I don't even know of being a sockpuppet. BTW how many USERNAMES before this were accused of being sockpuppets of me?? NONE. I only have this ip and my username. I did not edit on this site here till today. You're lying and you know it. And he lied. MY block was already up. It has been OVER 1 WEEK, I just came back today. [[User:Hganesan|Hganesan]]Hganesan 21:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
Plus the other guy has just been editing Steve Nash. And barely. I had edited a LOT more than that, like Kobe Bryant, ballhog, and the other articles. This is NOT ME. Simishag is LYING.[[User:Hganesan|Hganesan]] 21:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
:Neither of you are being civil, neither of your are calm. Do you actually want something done about this are you just going to argue with each other for a while? --[[User:Deskana|Lord Deskana]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Deskana|Dark Lord of the Sith]]</sup> 22:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::I apologize if I was uncivil (I disagree with that assessment, but okay). This is essentially a repeat of previous incidents involving [[User:Hganesan]] and suspected sockpuppets, beginning on 16 May 2006, and continuing every time he was unblocked. I don't really know what else to do other than post it here, as it's becoming a long-term issue. I do not believe this is a simple editing dispute; it's a repeated pattern of boorish behavior (rants, threats, vandalism, sockpuppets). I have never been accused of such in the year I've contributed here; he's been blocked 10 times (by 6 different admins) in the last 3 weeks, and he was even blocked from WikiEN-L. I stand by my work, and I think other editors and admins will support me on this one. [[User:Simishag|Simishag]] 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Actually, I think you're right, you didn't seem to be uncivil. Sorry, I must have read it wrong. I really should be asleep now, oh well. --[[User:Deskana|Lord Deskana]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Deskana|Dark Lord of the Sith]]</sup> 22:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The guy Simishag is accusing of being my sockpuppet is NOT, I don't have any sockpuppets now. He is lying here, and is trying to get me blocked again. I was blocked over a week ago, and I just came back today and signed on. Then all of a sudden this guy just accused me. That other user is NOT me. [[User:Hganesan|Hganesan]] 22:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
:You didn't answer my question. --[[User:Deskana|Lord Deskana]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Deskana|Dark Lord of the Sith]]</sup> 22:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
No, nothing should be done about this complaint because it is an OUTRIGHT and OUTRAGEOUS LIE.[[User:Hganesan|Hganesan]] 22:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
:Calm and civil? --[[User:Deskana|Lord Deskana]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Deskana|Dark Lord of the Sith]]</sup> 22:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Continuing everytime??? Do you notice I only went to those other ips when I was blocked??? Simishsag is lying. How many times have I been blocked in the last week and a half?? ZERO times. The last time I was blocked was may 21 or 22. Now it is June 3rd. History does not mean anything, I just got back here and started editing. He has no proof, only speculation. And school ended for me, so I am back at home now. I do not have access to other IPs, and that account was created while I was BLOCKED.[[User:Hganesan|Hganesan]] 22:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan
:You do realize that by insulting this user constantly here you're violating policy on a page read by dozens of admins? --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 22:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::Blocked for another week. '''[[User:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">Will</span>]]''' ([[WP:EA|<span style="color: green"><sup style="margin-right: -0.2em">E</sup><sub style="margin-left: -0.2em">@</sub></span>]]) <em><strong>[[User_talk:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">T</span>]]</strong></em> 22:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::At some point, an indef block of the user as having exhausted the community's patience might be in order. I think the user can become a valuable contributor, and I think we ought to work with him toward that end, but the user seems unwilling or unable to comport his editing with our policies and guidelines (most notably, even irrespective of POV/OR issues, with respect to style and the necessity that one affect a formal tone) and certainly has had a deleterious effect on the articles he has edited. Once more, I don't think an indef block is now appropriate, and I am eminently confident that we can help the user to edit productively, but it should be noted that, thus far, his editing and presence, taken cumulatively, have been more disruptive than constructive. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 03:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
===Checkuser result===
Simishag asked me to check whether Bucr and Hganesan were the same, so I forwarded it to RFCU, in which the result was that the two were unrelated '''[[User:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">Will</span>]]''' ([[WP:EA|<span style="color: green"><sup style="margin-right: -0.2em">E</sup><sub style="margin-left: -0.2em">@</sub></span>]]) <em><strong>[[User_talk:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">T</span>]]</strong></em> 20:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
== Question about article analysis ==
I don't exactly know where to ask this sort of question, but........
Should [[Teresa Wong|this article]] be cleaned up, or should I tag it for AFD and place it in BJAODN?--[[User:Ikiroid|<tt><b><font style="background:green" color="white"> The ikiroid </font></b></tt>]] 21:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
: Clean up and expand using info from [http://wiki.theppn.org/Teresa_Wong here], for instance. -- [[User:Grafikm_fr|<font color="Blue">'''Grafikm'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Grafikm_fr|'''<font color="red">(AutoGRAF)</font>''']]</sup> 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
== "We will drive you off Wikipedia" ==
I have indef-blocked [[User:WVTF]] for edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Morgan_Wick&diff=prev&oldid=56706040 this] to users' pages and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WVTF&diff=prev&oldid=56706628 this little diatribe] on his/her own page. Feel free to review... <tt>[[User:RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">Radio</span>]][[Special:Contributions/RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">Kirk</span>]]</tt> <tt>[[User talk:RadioKirk|<span style="font-size: 9px; color: #161;">talk to me</span>]]</tt> 22:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:Someone mentioned, I don't recall where, something along the lines of ''Wikipedianism is emerging as a religion'' (italicized owing to this being a paraphrase). If this user was serious, here's a disturbing symptom of that. I think the indef-block was well earned by this user. User:Ceyockey (<small>''[[User talk:Ceyockey|talk to me]]''</small>) 01:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
== Unannounced(?) Curps vandal rollback bot ==
It is my conclusion, based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=5000&target=Curps his contributions] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&action=history recent nonsensical spree], that either {{admin|Curps}} has given up on sleep and good sense, or he is running an anti-vandal [[WP:BOT|bot]] using [[Wikipedia:rollback|rollback]]. To my knowledge this was never announced, let alone discussed, and it is clear from the spree linked above that it still has some kinks. Unlike {{user|tawkerbot2}}, these actions are not identified as bot edits and the scope of its operations do not seem to have ever been explained.
If it were not Curps doing this, I would have already blocked the account, but because of the long history and the other services Curps provides, I wanted to raise this issue here first. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 22:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:Curps' page move bot? That's been around for ages. --[[User:Deskana|Lord Deskana]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Deskana|Dark Lord of the Sith]]</sup> 22:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::No, not page move. He appears to be doing vandal rollbacks with a bot as well. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 22:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::God, I'm stupid. Sorry, I'm exhausted... yeah, that is a bit worrying. Perhaps we should block the account pending a response? --[[User:Deskana|Lord Deskana]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Deskana|Dark Lord of the Sith]]</sup> 22:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::::My first instinct was no, but on the other hand if Curps (the human) is around then a block would force a response, and he can be unblocked straight away. If it is an unauthorised bot, then it should be blocked. So go ahead (I'd do it, but I'm off very soon, and it wouldn't be fair for me not to be there to unblock if needed). [[User:Petros471|Petros471]] 22:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::I've blocked him pending an explanation. As always, anyone can reverse it. '''[[User:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">Will</span>]]''' ([[WP:EA|<span style="color: green"><sup style="margin-right: -0.2em">E</sup><sub style="margin-left: -0.2em">@</sub></span>]]) <em><strong>[[User_talk:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">T</span>]]</strong></em> 22:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::: I will reverse it, it doesn't seem to have done much in the hour prior to blocking so wasn't being disruptive as such and we know the general benefits, so short of a major malfunction blocking it would appear to be potentially more harmful than beneficial. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 23:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:It also strikes me that Curps has been handing out an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&user=Curps awful lot of blocks] with the generic reason of "vandalism". If he is in fact using a bot to both rollback edits and autoblock certain editors, that strikes me as a more serious thing. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 23:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:: I would guess that there are a lot of people handing out blocks with that same generic reason. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 23:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::But to that extent? I mean, my initial response to this was going to be a link to my block logs to illustrate that I do as well, until I saw that. That is very generic. --[[User:Deskana|Lord Deskana]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Deskana|Dark Lord of the Sith]]</sup> 23:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:::: Possibly, however the issue which prompted this, rolling back edits to [[Wikipedia]] didn't result in any blocks, which if you believe the rollback is automated (like other bots) suggests the blocking for same is not. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 00:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::You're right. I am '''sooooo''' not thinking logically tonight. --[[User:Deskana|Lord Deskana]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Deskana|Dark Lord of the Sith]]</sup> 00:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Well if he is not autoblocking, and is only a single individual, then he seriously needs to sleep more. Between 9:47 May 7th and 1:00 May 10th, he issued 307 "vandalism" blocks with the largest gap between blocks was 2.1 hours. Between 10:03 April 19th and 1:00 May 10th, he issued 1452 "vandalism" blocks with no gaps larger than 4.4 hours and only 4 gaps larger than 4 hours. I don't know about you, but I need more sleep than that. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 00:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::::[[Polyphasic sleep]] :) '''[[User:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">Will</span>]]''' ([[WP:EA|<span style="color: green"><sup style="margin-right: -0.2em">E</sup><sub style="margin-left: -0.2em">@</sub></span>]]) <em><strong>[[User_talk:Sceptre|<span style="color: #369">T</span>]]</strong></em> 01:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::[[Insomnia]]? (I got amnesia and insomnia mixed up before... guess we know who's the insomniac here). --[[User:Deskana|Lord Deskana]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Deskana|Dark Lord of the Sith]]</sup> 01:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Read Curps' user page to see how many people complain that he wrongly reverted their edits without reason. Curps's rampant blocking and reverting will drive away more editors than 10 Willy On Wheels. [[User:70.48.250.130|70.48.250.130]] 03:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Curps' methods are (a) old news, and (b) the worst-kept secret on this entire project. I'd question the administrative credentials of anyone who was unaware of this. I'll bet dollars to donuts that is was due to some improperly encoded characters in the url, e.g. "�", which in many cases are indicative of a web proxy, as it's relatively difficult to type such characters accidentally using a normal keyboard. In fact, the IP address {{vandal|67.15.151.90}} does appear to be an open proxy:
<pre>
22/tcp open ssh
23/tcp open telnet
25/tcp filtered smtp
53/tcp open ___domain
80/tcp open http
135/tcp filtered msrpc
136/tcp filtered profile
137/tcp filtered netbios-ns
138/tcp filtered netbios-dgm
139/tcp filtered netbios-ssn
443/tcp open https
445/tcp filtered microsoft-ds
</pre>
First of all, let's figure out whether the edit was, in general, worth a damn (I have no opinion), and correct the URL if necessary. — <small>Jun. 4, '06</small><tt> '''[05:06] <<u class=plainlinks>[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freak]|[{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit§ion=new}} talk]</u>>'''</tt>
::Another update: the IP address resolves to UltraReach Internet Corp.<sup class="plainlinks">[http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=!%20NET-67-15-151-64-1]</sup>, which apparently distributes an anonymizing proxy client<sup class="plainlinks">[http://www.ultrareach.com/company/download.htm]</sup> intended to help users scale the [[Great Firewall of China]]. Perhaps an indefinite rangeblock is in order. — <small>Jun. 4, '06</small><tt> '''[07:06] <<u class=plainlinks>[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freak]|[{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit§ion=new}} talk]</u>>'''</tt>
The gibberish seems to have been removed from the paragraph by User:Kotepho<sup class=plainlinks>[{{fullurl:Wikipedia|diff=56732023&oldid=56725523}}]</sup>. — <small>Jun. 4, '06</small><tt> '''[05:23] <<u class=plainlinks>[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freak]|[{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit§ion=new}} talk]</u>>'''</tt>
::Hey this is user:freakofnurture editing through ultrasurf, an open proxy. [[User:67.15.183.5|67.15.183.5]] 07:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I confirm that the above edit was made by me, using the same anonymizing proxy. — <small>Jun. 4, '06</small><tt> '''[07:55] <<u class=plainlinks>[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freak]|[{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit§ion=new}} talk]</u>>'''</tt>
:a) Giving a bot the ability to issue indefinite blocks based on its interpretation of vandalism is certainly not "old news" to me, and would seem to have a lot of potential to create collateral harm that I think should be discussed. If it has been discussed, fine, show me where. Otherwise, please avoid questioning mine or anyone else's "administrative credentials". b) The strange wikitext you point to is an unrelated bug in the ref code which has been [[WP:VPT#nowiki_and_ref_weirdness|discussed at VPT]] from a different context. Maybe that bug is triggering Curps's reverts, I don't know. And perhaps the IP actually is an open proxy. If so that is a seperate issue to deal with, but the fact that Curps is apparently continuing to extend the functionality of his admin bot without community input and notice is at least disrespectful and quite possibly dangerous. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 06:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::Looking at the logs, he may have been running the vandalism bot for ~6 months now, but unless it was actually mentioned somewhere, I would never have assummed that blocks issued as "vandalism" were being made by a bot. If so, I would assume it has been doing at least an okay job if it didn't create huge conflicts before now. However I am still unsatisfied by Curps' secretive methods and uninformative edit summaries. For example, the reversions by Tawkerbot2 seem vastly supperior to me than simply automating a rollback process. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 06:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::For the record, Curps' bot only blocked page-move vandals at first. Not too long after, his bot started blocking questionable usernames. Now, it seems that his bot does try to block other types of vandals as well. --[[User:Ixfd64|Ixfd64]] 06:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Actually, that function has been around nearly as long as the pagemove part, and isn't a surprise (at least to me). There has also been considerable discussion about whether "user..." is an appropriate message to leave when a bot blocks a new account for having a bad username. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 06:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::::I think that if bot continues running, its algorithm should be changed. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rastonhicli this user] was blocked indefinitely after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_education&diff=prev&oldid=56761199 this edit] (the only edit he ever made). I seriously doubt it's authorized by [[WP:BP]]. [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 06:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Don't be silly, look at the other context surrounding that edit. That article was experiencing an attack by vandal sockpuppets all performing the same nonsensical edit, see [{{fullurl:Philosophy of education|dir=prev&offset=20060217211925&action=history}} history]. — <small>Jun. 4, '06</small><tt> '''[07:01] <<u class=plainlinks>[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freak]|[{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit§ion=new}} talk]</u>>'''</tt>
::::::Got it. Will try not to be silly. Will also try to be courteous. [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 07:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Well, actually the "silly" part isn't so much about what you did or didn't notice. It's about whom you choose to assume good/bad faith of, in the hypothetical situation of one piece of "evidence" existing in isolation. — <small>Jun. 4, '06</small><tt> '''[07:45] <<u class=plainlinks>[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freak]|[{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit§ion=new}} talk]</u>>'''</tt>
::::::::I agree that you're right and I should've looked into this better. [[User:Conscious|Conscious]] 08:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Well, I use "vandalism" as reason when blocking all the time. Also, considering how many times Curps blocks and rolls back in one day, I thought it would be obvious that no human was doing that. As for the edit above, look further into the article history - that was the sockpuppet of a vandal.--'''[[User:Shanel|<font color="#CD2626">Shanel</font>]] [[User talk:Shanel|<sup><font color="#EE2C2C">§</font></sup>]]''' 07:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::I was wondering why Curps blocked Joshbuddy (a long-time and apparently good contributor), since the page moves he supposedly made didn't show up in his contributions. However, the move log shows a bunch of WoW type page names and moves. Unlike WoW, legitimate articles were not moved, just pages with names of "WoW test pageX", though. Is everybody starting to freak out and go on vandalism sprees? -- [[User:Kjkolb|Kjkolb]] 07:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Josh was attempting to test an experimental tawkerbot feature, during the time that it appeared Curpsbot was offline. Apparently, he wasn't. — <small>Jun. 4, '06</small><tt> '''[08:11] <<u class=plainlinks>[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freak]|[{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit§ion=new}} talk]</u>>'''</tt>
So apparently Curps' bot is doing roughly the following things:
#'''Page moves throttle''': Detects a user moving pages beyond some rate threshold, issues an indefinate block with summary "page moves...", and posts a notice here at ANI.
#'''Page move vandalism''': Detects page moves to certain targets (e.g. Earth -> Earth on Wheels) as vandalism. Reverts the move and deletes the redirect.
#'''User names''': Follows the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=newusers new users log] and indefinately blocks users with names containing certain words (e.g. "vandal") or that use certain special characters. Block summary is "user..."
#'''Rollback''': Detects certain behaviors as vandalism and automatically uses rollback.
#'''Vandalism blocks''': Decides that some vandalism warrants a block summarized as "vandalism". Registered users triggering this are blocked indefinitely. Ordinary IPs are blocked for 24 hours and AOL IPs for 15 minutes. It appears that vandalism that triggers a block will be reverted, but that not all reverts trigger a block.
It is my intention to add a similar basic summary of Curps' functionality to [[WP:BOT]]. I'd also like to add it [[User:Curps]], since each bot is supposed to give a description of what it does on it's userpage, but I don't know if we can agree on that as long as Curpsbot = Curps user. Personally, I'd strongly prefer that the bot edits and blocks be identified as belonging to a bot in the summaries or through a seperate bot account. In my opinion, having an undocumented bot masquadering as an administrator is antithetical to the open and transparent environment on which Wikipedia is built, even if the bot's actions are presumed to always be correct and effective. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 10:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:Well, there's more to it than that, but outlining all of it would not be in anybody's best interests, as it would detract from its usefulness. If you create something resembling a "WikiProject Curps", I'm pretty sure it will be deleted as [[WP:BEANS]] and [[WP:POINT]]. — <small>Jun. 4, '06</small><tt> '''[10:26] <<u class=plainlinks>[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freak]|[{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit§ion=new}} talk]</u>>'''</tt>
::To be clear, I would intend to keep the description similar to the level given above. I am not trying to describe ''how'' it detects vandalism, etc., or give anyone a manual for avoiding it. However, if there are additional basic types of behavior that you are aware of, I would appreciate if you added them to the list. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 10:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, sysop bots seem to be taboo, at least under current policy. That being said I do think bot and user edits should be flagged as such, half of the time I don't know if it's Curps the human or Curpsbot. That being said I'd like to see some sort of policy developed for this sort of case, sysop using bots, it would make life a lot easier for both myself and Curps -- [[User:Tawker|Tawker]] 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Curps should open source his Bot! [[User:70.48.250.130|70.48.250.130]] 21:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::::A virtuous idea, for sure (long live [[libre software]]!). But we have [[WP:BEANS]] as well. Let's not give out that freely tools that would assist in building malicious software as well. [[User:Misza13|Misza]][[WP:ESP|<span style="color:green">'''13'''</span>]] <sup><u>'''[[User talk:Misza13|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Misza13|C]]'''</u></sup> 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::You are being hypocrit, libre software but censor information. [[User:70.48.250.130|70.48.250.130]] 21:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::It's easy enough to write a vandalbot, what with the Pywikipedia framework, or with javascript. I think that [[User:Curps|Curps]] should make the bot available to those who ask for it, and are obviously not vandals so that it can be examined.--<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]][[User:Digitalme/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">t</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">c</span>]])</sup></strong> 21:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Well, make it similar to Tawkerbot2, the code is semi private, it has been released to a fair number of trusted users but I wouldn't be stupid to put it on a public server to download (take pywikipedia and make it do 200 edits a min and you have my code). I would like to see an exact trigger list for Curpsbot thought -- [[User:Tawker|Tawker]] 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
== Barnes ==
At [[Talk:Barnes]], a concern is raised about what seems to be an advertisement on the [[Barnes]] Page. I wasn't sure whether this is a problem, or what to do. Thanks [[User:Jfr26|Jfr26]] 00:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:Dealt with on the [[Barnes|article]]'s [[Talk:Barnes|talk page]]. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 03:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
== Funny things going on some articles of Roman antiquity (expert check please) ==
See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABlack_Sword&diff=56744345&oldid=40919800]
I checked some of the other edits of {{user|Black Sword}}... couldn't find anything else particularily out of order, but the insertion of a third son of Lucius Julius Caesar II, with a name that has nothing to do with the Julii Caesares family ("Quintus Lutatius Catulus") is difficult to see as an "accidental" error. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 00:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
== Stepp-wolf ==
I remember seeing something about this vandal fly by on ANI a while ago, but I'm not sure of the entire case. A couple days ago, I blocked a [[User:SS Stepp-Wulf]] for pretty typical immature vandalism, and then today I came across a [[User:Stepp-Wolf]] who was involved in mass image upload vandalism. I've now blocked both indef, but I'm assuming this is a lengthier and more complex case that I'm not entirely aware of. Apparently, indef-blocked [[User:ZeebotheClown]] is somehow connected to the Stepp-wolf vandals as well. Anyway, I intend to indef block any account with a similar username, and just wanted to make sure everyone knew about Stepp-wolf and was aware that he seems quite intent upon creating multiple sockpuppets for the purpose of vandalism. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|talk]]) 02:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:I had at the same time a look at the same editor, and there seems to be several sleeper accounts that did pretty uch the smae thing shortly after each other. I feel that there need to be some more indef blocks for vandalism sockpuppets. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 04:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::After looking at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fall_Out_Boy&limit=500&action=history Fall_Out_Boy history]], the target, I think we might want to full-protect the page AND the image for a while. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 04:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I agree. I've also full protected [[:Image:Panic at the Disco promo.jpg]], another target of the Stepp Wolfs, and removed a bunch of vandalism from its file history. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|talk]]) 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
== {{User|Moby Dick}} ==
There was a very recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive102#Stalking ANB/I discussion]. It can be summarised with MONGO's comment
:''My inclination, along with Tony Sidaway, is that there is strong circumstantial evidence that Davebelle and Moby Dick are the same editor. I have reviewed the evidence posted and have discussed this matter with one other editor and I see a preponderance of evidence that indicates that not only has Moby Dick wikistalked User:Cool Cat, but User:MegamanZero as well, and that Moby Dick is a sockpuppet of Davenbelle.--MONGO 09:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)''
Moby Dick was overal warned not to continue stalking. Since the warning on 20 May by Tony Sidaway, Moby dick has:
:...gotten involved with the poll on [[Talk:Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict]] (opposing me on all of the vote options)
:...gotten involved with a [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_27#Category:Kurdish_inhabited_regions|cfd nom]] someone else started after I voted. Also being somewhat [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_deletion%2FLog%2F2006_May_27&diff=56768865&oldid=56722900 disruptive]... --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 04:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Among over 1.1 million articles I do not see how we can meet so frequently, given Moby had minimal edits.
--<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 04:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:Without being familiar with this specific situation, I will say that it is not necessarily unusual that there will be many editors interested in and editing a handful of articles, given the subject matter, and it is not necessarily unusual that many of them will adopt the same stance on many issues. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 04:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::Earlier evidence points out the frquency (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive102#Moby_Dick_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 this section on ANB/I archive]) rather well. I do not believe all that is just random concidences. Am I supposed to get stalked another month before something is done? I am just uncertain of the procedure. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 12:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I still agree with my earlier assessment.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 10:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:I haven't changed my mind, either. I believe Moby Dick is highly likely to be Davenbelle, even though for technical reasons it can't be proved 100%. On May 20, MD was formally warned by Tony Sidaway to "keep away, as much as is reasonably possible, from articles, talk pages and other pages edited by Cool Cat".[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive102#Stalking]. This doesn't look a lot like keeping away. While there's possibly room for some doubt, both about the Davenbelle identification and the more recent stalking (there's no doubt at all about the stalking before the warning was issued), I think this is what we have an ArbCom for. You should take it directly to them. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 14:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC).
See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=56831067&oldid=56822764 this request for arbitration] which I have just opened. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 15:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:: If required, I am most certainly willing to construct a statement on the arbitration page in view of this situation. -[[User:Megaman Zero|Zero]]<sup>[[User talk:Megaman Zero|Talk]]</sup> 15:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
== User:ZAROVE violating arbcom decision ==
Here's the arbcom [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ZAROVE#Log_of_blocks_and_bans page]. Here's Zarove's edit, which he titled [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acharya_S&curid=2592928&diff=56755353&oldid=56301164 "GO AHEAD AND BAN ME FOR TWO WEEKS"]. [[User:^^James^^|^^James^^]] 04:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:There's a page for this. There's a link to that page up the top of this one. Try there. <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">[[User:Werdna648|Werdna]]<sub>[[User talk:Werdna648|T]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|c]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sub><sup>[[User:Werdnabot|b]]</sup><sub>[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?dbname=enwiki_p&user=Werdna648 C]</sub><sup>[[m:User:Werdna648|m]]</sup><sub>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Werdna648 L]</sub><sup>[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~werdna t]</sup></font></span> 11:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
== User puts shock picture on his user talk page ==
[[User:The Mad Bomber]] has put a hideously sick picture on the top of his [[User talk:The Mad Bomber|user talk page]]. '''Warning: Do not go to that talk page unless you are very hard to gross out.'''
The picture has nothing to do whatsoever with his user page or Wikipedia. My guess is he put it there as a way to get back at anyone who would visit his talk page to lodge a complaint against him.
I don't know if a situation like this has a precedent. [[WP:USER]] does not specifically address this, although it does say user pages should not be used for things unrelated to Wikipedia, and that material can only remain on a user page with the "consent of the community." [[Help:Talk page]] points out that user talk pages are for communication between users, not for whatever The Mad Bomber is doing.
I posted a message of complaint on the talk page in question. The Mad Bomber responded by calling me a Nazi and calling the image "a beacon of free speach, sexual liberation, and equality."
I have no desire to return to The Mad Bomber's talk page to argue with him. But I would like some advice on what to do. Thanks -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 04:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:He appears to be using a public ___domain image from the article, [[Prince Albert piercing]]. Seeing as this image is part of the encyclopedia proper, and Wikipedia is not censored, he's not outwardly defying any policies. -- [[User:Longhair|Longhair]] 04:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:Lol, adding it [[MediaWiki:Bad image list]], similarly to such memes as [[:Image:Autofellatio_2.jpg|Autofellatio_2.jpg]] would be an option<!-- the following section my violate WP:BEANS -->, especially if he starts incorporating it into his signature. — <small>Jun. 4, '06</small><tt> '''[04:56] <<u class=plainlinks>[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freak]|[{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit§ion=new}} talk]</u>>'''</tt>
::Well, I don't know about "hideously sick." This image, of a common male genital piercing, is used in article space. Clearly the user is just trying to be clever, but I don't see a big problem with it. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] 04:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::(after edit conflict)FWIW, I think the locution ''hideously sick picture'' to be a breathless overstatement; I'm inclined to think that most, as I, won't be off-put in the least by its inclusion on Mad's talk page. Nevertheless, because it will likely offend some and thus disrupt the collaborative process on which the encyclopedia rests, the image should be removed. Free speech and sexual liberation aren't really the salient issues here; [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not]] a venue for one to proselytize with respect free speech and sensibilities (which I note even as I think Mad and I are likely of one mind apropos of most issues), and, where one's comments/expressions with respect to off-Wiki issues disrupt the project, comments/expressions can and should be limited. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 05:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Yeah, it's hyperbole. However, I'd support the addition of this image to [[MediaWiki:Bad image list]] per Freakofnurture, it seems to be consistent with the images already there. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 05:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::One problem is that it has overexposed highlights but I think that is irrelevant to the discussion here. But it would be good to correct if an image of this sort is to be retained. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 05:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::: (after edit conflict) While we do not have a specific ''policy'' forbidding PA's on talk pages, removing the image would be a cooperative and helpful thing for The Mad Bomber to do. It certainly does interfere with using his talk page to communicate with him. If people who do not care to view the image need to talk to him in the meantime, they may want to disable image loading in the Preferences or Options dialog for their browser. [[User_talk:FreplySpang|FreplySpang]] 05:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Grow up guys. I think it's beautiful, though a bit small and thin and I wouldn't do it to myself. [[User:Mccready|Mccready]] 06:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:I think most of us agree with you, as evidenced by the general rejection of the proposition that the image is particularly inflammatory. WP, though, is frequented by some who think differently, and the image is likely to prove disruptive to them if they should attempt to collaborate with Mad. Even as I have difficulty understanding why one would be disturbed by the image, I understand that some (possibly a good portion of regular editors) are disturbed, and, where there's no overarching encyclopedic purpose for its inclusion, it's likely better that the image be removed. As Freply notes, though, it'd be most decorous of Mad to do this himself. If he wishes to advance arguments with respect to free speech and gender equality, the community might, consistent with [[WP:USER]], permit him to make such arguments on his userpage, provided that he otherwise contributes to the project, but disruption must be de minimis; for a community to exist, collaboration must be facilitated, but so must one's ability to let others know who he/she is, and text can serve each purpose in a fashion that the image cannot. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 06:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad the rest of you aren't as sickened by this image as I am. But as Joe points out, this is not an issue of censorship of indecency. I have nothing against people finding this image if they're looking for it. The problem is ''where'' the image is. This image will appear to people who have no expectation of seeing it. Assuming that I'm not the only person grossed out by the picture, it will discourage people from using the user talk page and, as Joe says, inhibit communication between The Mad Bomber and others. Oh, and we might have a policy for this already -- [[WP:DICK]]. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] 15:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The Mad Bomber's behaviour is a little worrying. If he truly thought the picture was beautiful or important or some other real reason for having it there then he would respond accordingly. Instead he appears to be deliberately escalating things by have the picture appear multiple times on his talk page, by posting it on other people's talk page and by putting vandal notices on experienced editors talk pages because they removed it. Taking AGF to stretching point I have removed the duplicates but left the original (for now) asked him to explain why he wants the picture there and asked him not to engage in behaviours that serve to escalate rather than diffuse. Hopefully he will do the right thing. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 16:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
: This is such a blatant case of malicious editing that I've warned him he's in for a block if he continues. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 16:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::Won't work. He would still be able to edit the talk page.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 16:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Well at least it would prevent him from posting that image on other people's talk pages.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Threeafterthree&diff=prev&oldid=56744225] [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<b><font size="3">♫</font></b>]] 16:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
As a general rule usertalk pages should be safe for work. If they are not it reduces their usefullness.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 16:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Looking at his contributions he appears to be GNAA. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll echo what Geni said—user and user talk pages should be 'safe for work'. We follow what is sometimes described as a 'Principle of Least Astonishment' in determining whether an image is appropriate on a given Wikipedia page. If someone is going looking for information about a Prince Albert piercing, it's not utterly unreasonable to expect a picture of one. If someone is looking to discuss articles with an editor – or just to find out more about him – that someone shouldn't encounter a large, naked, pierced penis. I mean, if an editor wanted to announce that he was a [[WP:DICK|dick]], there are better ways to go about it. If our editors don't feel that it is safe to visit other editors' user and talk pages when anyone else is watching, it interferes with the functioning of the encyclopedia. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 17:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
: It's not the nature of the talk page, but the pattern of behavior. He's trolling and vandalizing. As to blocking him "not working", a simple protect of the talk page for the duration of the block would take care of that. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 17:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
==Incivility [[User:ILike2BeAnonymous]]==
:''You post a link to the ''National Review''—and then have the nerve to go by the moniker of "Neutral arbiter"? What kind of '''bullshit''' is that?''
:''Wait—I can answer that; just the garden-variety so-called "NPOV" bullshit, aka [[Objectivism (Ayn Rand)|Randian objectivist]] bullshit (Jimbo Wales' bullshit POV, that is).''
:''In any case, you'd be well-advised to read a '''real news report''' about the "incident", like [http://www.sundayherald.com/56107 this one]. Oh, and have a nice day. ==[[User:ILike2BeAnonymous|ILike2BeAnonymous]] 07:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haditha_killings&diff=56791506&oldid=56790767]
There is no reason for this kind of language on a talk page of an article.--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 07:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:I blocked him for 24 hours for violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. He's been warned on it by others, including admins. And it's not the language, per se. It's the attack nature of the post. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(meow)]]</sup> 08:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
== Vandalism by 74.52.14.138 ==
Anonymous user at 74.52.14.138 vandalised [[User talk:TruthbringerToronto]] [[User:TruthbringerToronto|TruthbringerToronto]] 08:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
*He's repeatedly vandalized articles, mainly by blanking and replacing with "anal sex." See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=74.52.14.138 contributions]. – [[User:Lunarbunny|Lunarbunny]] 08:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Blocked. In the future, please report vandals to [[WP:AIV]] and then only once they have vandalized despite receiving a {{tl|test4}} warning. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|talk]]) 08:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
=={{User|Incorrect}} POV pushing, edit warring, racist attacks==
I try to avoid the word "POV pushing" but there is no other way to avoid it. The following are some of this users edits (most of which have been reverted for the same reason).
[[Norman Finkelstein|Norman Finkelstein Article]]-"anti-semetic, anti-western"..."claims to be the son of holocaust survivors"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norman_Finkelstein&diff=prev&oldid=56793815]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norman_Finkelstein&diff=prev&oldid=56748566]
[[Noam Chomsky|Noam Chomsky Article]]-"anti Israeli anti Jewish anti Western"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noam_Chomsky&diff=prev&oldid=56748161]
[[John Pilger|John Pilger Article]]-"Noam Chomsky, the far left anti American anti Israeli"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Pilger&diff=prev&oldid=56740701] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Pilger&diff=56740701&oldid=55820930]
[[Talk:Palestinian people]]-uncivility and essentially racist remarks.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinian_people&diff=prev&oldid=56594849]
''R, your monologue above is exactly the reason that original research is not permitted in these articles. '''For all I know you are a raging terrorist out to murder Jews, Brits and Americans, purposely attempting to sound semi moderate to conceal evil intent (we certainly have had enough of those recently in many Western countries).''' I could post a long article claiming to be a Palestinian Christian suffering the discrimination and '''brutality of having to live amongst a bunch of intolerant bloodthirsty Muslims''' (and those Christians probably exist), but it wouldn't be true. The whole point of Wiki is to have third party mainstream objective sources as the sole source of information. That will provide some validity to these articles. The fact that you (or I) don't like a particular point of view is something you or I might find disconcerting, but if a mainstream source says something, and you don't believe it's accurate, you don't delete the source, you provide another source that has a contrary point of view. I personally find the views of Eduard Said and Noam Chommpsky vile, untruthful, and crazed - but I wouldn't delete them from an article, I would just make sure that a view I considered more accurate was also cited. R, that's what democracy is all about, not drowning out those you disagree with, but offering alternatives to allow interested persons to make up their own mind. And that's why ultimately democracy wins out over rival systems that involved censorship and intolerance, people want the right to make up their own mind. Observe the rules, post mainstream sources, suck it up when reading views you don't like, and you will be a good editor on this article.[[User:Incorrect|Incorrect]] 12:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC'') [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinian_people&diff=56484177&oldid=56478018]
I bolded that part because it was made after it was revealed that the poster, [[User:Ramallite]], whom he was addressing was Palestinian. Calling a Palestinan wikipedian a possible "raving terrorist, out to kill Americans" is unnacceptable.
There is much more, just check out the user's contribution history.--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 09:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:I left a comment on his/her talk page to refrain from adding these types of edits.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that the last comment in particular warrants a temporary block. Of course, it is up to you guys to decide.--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 11:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:Let's see if he/she chills out after my comment...if not, let us know.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:Please add to this list edits at [[Presbyterian Church (USA)]]. It's a bit over the top when you announce an article contribution together with a threat to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presbyterian_Church_%28USA%29&diff=56823928&oldid=51270605 edit war] with anyone who reverts it. The contribution in question seems to be sourced only to opinion pieces and/or blogs. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presbyterian_Church_%28USA%29&diff=56836541&oldid=56834931]
:Please also note that it appears that [[User:Incorrect|Incorrect]] also occasionally edits as [[User:63.205.151.68|63.205.151.68]]. ''[[User_talk:Kwh|KWH]]'' 16:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, in addition to that he is now making false accusations of "vandalism" for people removing the content he adds on pages:
''M has once again vandalized the Presbyterian Church article by censoring the information that there is a dispute raging as to whether the PC is antisemitic: http://www.christiantoday.com/news/america/us.presbyterian.church.warns.companies.to.boycott.israel.or.face.divestment/380.htm This attempt a vandalizing the article will not work - [[User:Incorrect|Incorrect]] 17:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)''
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mazeface&diff=prev&oldid=56847443]
''A, you have joined the side of the censors who are attempting to vandalize the article on the Presbyterian Church's anti -Semitism problem. Despite third party reputable sources that report that the PC has been accused of anti-semitism, you have supported those who consistenly delete that information. If you feel the PB church is not anti semitic, you are certainly free to add information to the article and cite sources that say it is not - it is vandalism, however, to delete information that such a controversy even exists. I would guess that you are a man of science from your talk page, since that requires a clarity of thought I would hope that upon reconsideration YOU will edit the PC article to include the anti-semitism information (adding to it if you wish information that would attempt to refute that charge.'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alteripse&diff=prev&oldid=56864371]--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 21:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
=={{User|Striver}} [[WP:Spam]]==
The user is spamming users to try and get a skewed vote to save his page from deletion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TruthSeeker1234&diff=prev&oldid=56804949], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHyperbole&diff=56804723&oldid=56312065], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SkeenaR&diff=prev&oldid=56804739], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mboverload&diff=prev&oldid=56804733], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThaThinker&diff=prev&oldid=56804681], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pokipsy76&diff=prev&oldid=56804216],
''Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view.'' [[WP:Spam#Internal spamming]]--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 11:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
== [[User:Jgwlaw]] ==
Okay, this user in my opinion breached [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:POINT]] and [[WP:3RR]]. I seeked the opinion of another admin, who blocked the user for 3 days. I am now currently being harassed by email... This includes a series of emails labled ''"You are labeling as an 'extremist group' a health forum of injured women."'' I have asked now 3 times for the said user to stop. [[User:Ian13|Ian13]]/<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">[[User talk:Ian13|talk]]</span> 12:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:Oh, emails seem to have stopped. [[User:Ian13|Ian13]]/<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">[[User talk:Ian13|talk]]</span> 13:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
=={{user|Zer0faults}}==
After making wild accusations on numerous pages, while misrepresenting my words, I amended my comment on his talk page with a strike trough to prevent him from continuing making misleading remarks.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zer0faults&diff=56832174&oldid=56820556] However, this user forbids me to do so.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zer0faults&curid=4968081&action=history] Is there any reason why I am not allowed to alter a comment? I see many people using strike through so why can't I?<font color="green"> [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>[[User talk:Nescio|Gnothi seauton]]</small></font></i></sup> 15:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:I instructed the user to add a reply to his own comment if he feels it needs clarification. Since he has accused me of taking his words out of context, I believe they should stay exactly as originally posted. Posting a comment below the original statement to add clarification would be correct measure. People who visit the talk page will not know when the strike through was added, causing confusion. --[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Zer0faults#Signature|''<font color="Blue"><sup>|sockpuppets|</sup></font>'']] 15:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:Futhermore the user is adding words not simply adding a strike through. Therefore its midleading, if Nescio would like to add a comment below the original stating what he meant to say, I would have no problem with that. However adding words is misleading. --[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Zer0faults#Signature|''<font color="Blue"><sup>|sockpuppets|</sup></font>'']] 15:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Another misrepresentation, I changed ''support'' for ''adding IP'' and ''initial'' for ''initial filing''. Hardly a change in words. Can somebody review this users uncivil actions?<font color="green"> [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>[[User talk:Nescio|Gnothi seauton]]</small></font></i></sup> 16:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:Speaks for itself [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zer0faults&diff=56834781&oldid=prev] he added the words "adding new socks", please stop lying. --[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Zer0faults#Signature|''<font color="Blue"><sup>|sockpuppets|</sup></font>'']] 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::Nescio is a likely troll or provocateur. He has been caught red handed using sockpuppets and trying to blame his sockpuppet edits on others see this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:80.220.222.68&oldid=56842751]{{unsigned|69.46.20.59}}
Quelle surprise, a Merecat sock comes to the rescue, you have outed yourself once again by referring to a common correction on WP I made.<font color="green"> [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>[[User talk:Nescio|Gnothi seauton]]</small></font></i></sup> 16:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::Nescio your prevarications on this point are obvious: You are 80.220.222.68 and not only did you make sockpuppet edits, but you tried to blame those edits on Merecat. You have done as much and more "bad" things as Merecat. [[User:69.46.20.59|69.46.20.59]] 16:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:Who outed who my IP is 74.64.40.102, get over yourself. I demand an apology for this users accusations once again. --[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Zer0faults#Signature|''<font color="Blue"><sup>|sockpuppets|</sup></font>'']] 16:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Suspected sock {{user|69.46.20.59 }} starts making personal attacks[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.46.20.59&diff=prev&oldid=56843837][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=56844262][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=56843496][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:80.220.222.68&diff=prev&oldid=56842674] right after Mr Zero was asked if he is one. Can any admin intervene and stop these PA?<font color="green"> [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>[[User talk:Nescio|Gnothi seauton]]</small></font></i></sup> 16:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::Please do go check Nescio's diff links. There is rock solid proof that Nescio have previously been a sock [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:80.220.222.68&oldid=56846297] who blamed Merecat for what Nescio did. Now Nescio is violating 3RR to hide the proof. [[User:69.46.20.59|69.46.20.59]] 17:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:Where is the PA, you have just accused me once again of being a sockpuppet. I demand an apology. --[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Zer0faults#Signature|''<font color="Blue"><sup>|sockpuppets|</sup></font>'']] 16:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::I am tired of your intimidation tactics of accusing people of being sockpuppets merely because they do not agree with your point of view or oppose your stance on what users should be banned. I deman an apology for your constant attacks on me calling me a sockpuppet. --[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Zer0faults#Signature|''<font color="Blue"><sup>|sockpuppets|</sup></font>'']] 16:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for observing that right after another editor asked you about being a sock, mysteriously a sock of Merecat starts accusing me. There it is, an apology for telling what happens.<font color="green"> [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>[[User talk:Nescio|Gnothi seauton]]</small></font></i></sup> 16:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:Your apology is accepted. Perhaps you shouldn't jump on the band wagon and instead do your own research. I have already provided my own IP, do an ARIN lookup if you still believe me to be a sockpuppet, do an open proxy scan etc. I have had the same IP for some time as my cable lines it always on. But as I stated in the beginning, do not add words to comments on my talk page after they have been replied to. If you feel you needed to clarify something then its obvious something you said can be misinterpreted or taken out of context etc. Changing the context by adding and removing words later is bad form. Feel free as I stated numerous times to add your comment about clarification below the existing one that needs clarification as to not confused readers who stop by, they shouldnt have to dig through an edit history to read the conversation. --[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Zer0faults#Signature|''<font color="Blue"><sup>|sockpuppets|</sup></font>'']] 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
== 159.101.8.69 ==
This IP continues with vandalism. Edits have been reverted by bots and also manually. Today this IP inserted a fake notice about the death of Sylvester Stallone with went unnoticed for 1 hour. The IP has been blocked twice already, maybe it should be blocked longer or even forever. Thanks. -- [[User:80.139.244.182|80.139.244.182]] 16:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
: I have blocked the user for 1 week. In the future please report vandals to [[WP:AIV]]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
=={{user|69.46.20.59}}==
Please can somebody intervene? This user is massively placing personal attacks.<font color="green"> [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>[[User talk:Nescio|Gnothi seauton]]</small></font></i></sup> 17:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:Nescio is a likely troll or provocateur. He has previously been caught red handed using sockpuppets and trying to blame his sockpuppet edits on others see this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:80.220.222.68&oldid=56842751] [[User:69.46.20.59|69.46.20.59]] 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::I'm sorry but how is that redhandidly using sockpuppets? Perhaps he simply forgot to log in. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:Read the entire seciton Nescio was editing. It was a WP:ANI report about an anon editor that Nescio was suggesting is Merecat when in fact Nescio's edit proves it was Nescio. Nescio was asked about this 4 times previously by MErecat and each time refused to answer. Not only was Nescio sockpuppeting, but he was falsely acccusing Merecat for edits that he himself had made. [[User:69.46.20.59|69.46.20.59]] 17:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::I did read it. The ANI report was about someone called User:IworkforNASA not an anon editor as far as i can see. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 18:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Can somebody remove the personal attacks by {{user|Merecat}} and block this IP he is using in an attempt to be disruptive.<font color="green"> [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>[[User talk:Nescio|Gnothi seauton]]</small></font></i></sup> 17:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
What's the matter Nescio? Don't you want the admins here to see the proof of what you've been up to? [[User:69.46.20.59|69.46.20.59]] 17:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:I don't see any proof here. What exactly are you accusinng him of doing? [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 18:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I assume you are asking Merecat's sock, in that case he can't answer since the IP has been blocked for trolling. Quelle surprise. The proof is I edit other people's comments. Only recently I corrected the link to Merecat's RfAr on the current RfCU involving him. Since the original post was by Mr Tibbs, the logic advanced proves I am a sock of Tibbs. It would be funny if Merecat hadn't been exceedingly dispruptive with millions of IP's.<font color="green"> [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>[[User talk:Nescio|Gnothi seauton]]</small></font></i></sup> 18:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
=={{vandal|Khoikhoi}}==
{{vandal|Khoikhoi}} vandalize pages like [[Moldovans]]. --[[User:168.126.28.25|168.126.28.25]] 18:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:<nowiki>*Sigh*</nowiki> [[User:Bonaparte|Bonaparte]]... —<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Khoikhoi|<font color="">Khoikhoi</font>]]</span> 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::He has no proof. But he use this as pretext to revert any work on [[Moldovans]]. Actually he supports a [[stalinist]] view very [[anti-romanian]]! --[[User:168.126.28.25|168.126.28.25]] 18:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::[[WP:AGF]], [[WP:NPA]], impending block. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 18:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
==[[User:81.208.62.251]]==
User is adding pornographic links to articles as can be seen here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stan_Brakhage&diff=56858206&oldid=prev] and here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samuel_Lover&diff=56819965&oldid=prev] OF their 4 additions to the Wiki, 2 have been clearly vandalism and one an attack on me. --[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Zer0faults#Signature|''<font color="Blue"><sup>|sockpuppets|</sup></font>'']] 18:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:If that is an example of an attack you will agree your comments on my person warrant the same description.<font color="green"> [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>[[User talk:Nescio|Gnothi seauton]]</small></font></i></sup> 20:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
'''Update:''' Aparently 3 were vandalism see here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patent&diff=56306642&oldid=prev]--[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Zer0faults#Signature|''<font color="Blue"><sup>|sockpuppets|</sup></font>'']] 18:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Please report vandalism at [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]] rather than here. Thanks. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 18:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
== Requests for Checkuser ==
Requests for Checkuser no longer has a backlog; all requests have been processed (with the exception of the one I'm currently working on, and one that is being summarized). Anyone who has requested a check within the last several days should check back on their requests to find the results and see that they are carried out. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Essjay'''</font>]] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>[[User talk:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">Talk</font>]] • [[User:Essjay/Contact|<font color="#7b68ee">Connect</font>]]</small>)</font></span> 20:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
| 