Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Gina Gold: Difference between pages

(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
Kelly Martin (talk | contribs)
 
Mac256 (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
Line 1:
{{Unreferenced|date=March 2007}}
{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}
{{SectOR}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{Infobox character
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->
| name = Gina Gold
<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. -->
| image = [[Image:GinaGold.jpg|300px|Gina]]
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->
| caption = [[Roberta Taylor]] as '''Inspector Gina Gold'''
| first = Episode #021 (27/06/2002)
| last = ''Behind Closed Doors'' (12/7/07)
| cause = Suspended due to bullying allegation made by PC [[Emma Keane]]
| occupation = Police Officer
| title = Inspector
| callsign = Sierra Oscar 1
| spouse = [[Adam Okaro]], [[Johnathan Fox]] and Peter Harris
| portrayer = [[Roberta Taylor]]
}}
'''Inspector Gina Gold''' is a character in the popular ITV drama ''[[The Bill]]'' and is portrayed by [[Roberta Taylor]]. She arrived in the Summer of 2002. Her callsign is 'Sierra Oscar 1'.
 
==Character Profile==
<div style="float:right;">Visual archive cue: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive121|121]]</div>
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-2 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive121--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
 
Inspector Gina Gold is originally from South London. An all-drinking, all-smoking workaholic, Gina's ballsy, funny and has the capacity to terrify every rank of officer when the mood takes her. She joined the Met slightly later in life at 28. The daughter of a bookmaker, she left school and worked as a till girl in one of her dad's South London shops. His clients although pretty low level, had fingers in many pies. Gina grew to resent the sort of men who used to frequent the premises and with that developed a razor sharp sense of wit as well as an impressive left hook. Even by the age of 17, Gina was not a woman to be messed with.
==Community ban on [[User:Hogeye]]==
 
Gina's heritage and knowledge of the underworld makes her an instinctive copper. It wasn't ambition that got her up the ladder, but her talent. She made it to DS pretty quickly and earned a reputation for being funny, hardnosed, loyal but unpredictable. She raised a few eyebrows when she decided to go for the post of uniform Inspector at Sun Hill, instead of following the rest of the herd with their sights set on DI. Her reasoning was simple: if the young hotshot uniforms can transfer into CID overnight, why not the other way around?
[[User:Hogeye]] was blocked for a month for disruption on anarchism related articles. Since then he has been consistently and almost on a daily basis (although with notable and lengthy lulls) been using open proxies to evade his block. Ideally I'd like to see a ban and indefinite block put in place, but I'd settle for something that we don't have to reset the block every couple of days :)
 
Having had a foot in both camps, uniform and CID, Gina is a natural bridge between the two departments and each earns her respect this way. She refuses to bow to political correctness and won't be dictated to by the thought police. But whilst she's happy to live by her old school copper reputation, Gina isn't averse to using every trick in the book to swing things her way. She certainly has a sharp-tongue, to which her colleagues constantly fall prey. She rules the relief with an iron rod and her manner can often be seen as brusque and sarcastic. Gina will let anyone have their say, whatever rank, without fear of being disciplined - as long as she's afforded the same respect in return. She's also fiercely protective of her team - she's the first one to leap to their defence. But behind her super-confident exterior, she hides a secret sadness - her brother Richard committed suicide in jail after being wrongly convicted of murder. She has mellowed slightly following a recent fight with cervical cancer.
''20:15, 7 July 2006, Sarge Baldy (Talk) blocked Hogeye (contribs) (expires 20:15, 7 August 2006) (Unblock) (resetting due to ban evasion)''
 
First in and last to leave, dedicated Gina is always at her post. If not, she's probably in the ladies' lighting up yet another cigarette
See the category [[:Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Hogeye|here]]. Note that most of these are not sockpuppets in the conventional sense, but just open proxies that are being used to circumvent his block. - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 10:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
:I spent most of my time on wikipedia yesterday reverting Hogeye's sock edits at [[Anarchism]], so I am fully supportive of this proposal. Their socks also reverted changes I made to other articles recently, including this page, making three personal attacks in the process: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_individualist_anarchism&diff=prev&oldid=62659670], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Punk_subculture&diff=prev&oldid=62661340], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_Liberation_Front&diff=prev&oldid=62661682] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=62661141]. This user constantly evades blocks and edits disruptively, and it's about time they get banned permanently. [[User:The Ungovernable Force|The Ungovernable Force]] 18:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:As the one who protected the [[Anarchism]] article for a month while trying to make Hogeye discuss his changes (before the first month-long block), I would not oppose it. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 02:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
::They have a new sock: [[User:Drowner]].--[[User:The Ungovernable Force|The Ungovernable Force]] 02:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
*<sarcasm>Oppose; useful method for finding more open proxies to block.</sarcasm> [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 02:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
*:<strike>'''Comment:''' They will still use open proxies even after they are banned permanently, so it won't keep you from finding more. [[User:The Ungovernable Force|The Ungovernable Force]] 02:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)</strike> Oh, sorry. It's sometimes hard to tell sarcasm in type. It was funny though. [[User:The Ungovernable Force|The Ungovernable Force]] 02:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 
{{start box}}
== Concerning [[User:haham hanuka]] ==
{{succession box | before = [[Andrew Monroe]]| title = [[Sun Hill]] [[Inspector]] | years = 2002-present| after = ''Acting Inspector[[Dale Smith (The Bill)|Smithy]]''}}
{{end box}}
 
I removed part of this users userpage becuase,imho, it violated the guideline at [[Wikipedia:User page]] (Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia) ; please also have a look [[User talk:Lectonar#== Thanks for blocking him ==|here]]. I consider a block. Any comments? [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] 14:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
:Given the translation (which I had been waiting for before taking further action on this), I strongly support the removal of the material. There's no need for a block at this time, but the user should definitely not re-add the material. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 21:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
::The content has just been deleted through a formal procedure and he readds as if the community wasn't here. He should be blocked, as he has done this many times before and he was warned about his disrespect for our community decisions many times before. [[User:Gidonb|gidonb]] 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Actually, the was deleted at his request, ''not'' because of the MfD&mdash;and he hoped that adding it to his user page instead would be a compromise. It's clear the community wants it gone, even from his user page, so that isn't acceptable. But at this time, it has been removed from his userpage by Lectonar and not-readded; as long as he doesn't restore the material ''anywhere'', no further action is necessary. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 16:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
:I agree with SCZenz: a block isn't appropriate ''at this time.'' There is a difference between re-adding because he's in a fight and re-adding after he's gotten multiple sets of administrative eyes. In the former case, the slow-ish dispute resolution process would need to take place. In the latter case, it's sort of a different set of offenses that can justify a block more quickly. (No, I'm not lawyering. I'm suggesting that the user can misunderstand some things, but not others.) [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 14:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
From what I can see, the page was deleted through a regular procedure with which he agreed. In the meantime he has been blocked for a week for serious trolling on other AfDs. [[User:Gidonb|gidonb]] 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 
[[Category:The Bill characters|Gold, Gina]]
== reposting of thread User:SirIsaacBrock ==
[[Category:Fictional police officers|Gold, Gina]]
 
==Deir Yassin==
===Guy Montag banned from Battle of Deir Yassin===
 
Per the terms of his [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber|probation]], Guy Montag has been banned from editing [[Battle of Deir Yassin]]/[[Deir Yassin Massacre]] for disruptive editing, soliciting votes on a requested move, and incivility on the article's talk page. Any dissenting administrator may repeal this ban as necessary. [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] ([[User talk:Ral315|talk]]) 16:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 
I really don't think that he was doing anything innappropriate on that page, I think the block should be lifted.- [[User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg]] | [[User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Talk]] 03:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:Votestaking is inappropriate. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 05:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::I really haven't seen any evidence that what Guy was doing was in fact votestacking at all. I personally voted in that article because it was on my watchlist, I think everybody kinda voted at once because they might have been waiting to see what other people's opinions were. I think that it is ridiculous that Guy is being banned for something that almost everybody does when there is a vote going on, after all I wonder how so many people that voted "support" found out that there was a survey going on at that particular moment especially when so many people had never edited the article in question before? That "votestacking" probably occured through E-mail.- [[User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg]] | [[User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Talk]] 08:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::Kim, this is a controversy to which you are a party, and your "judgment" that votestaking has occurred, it must be said, is subjective. Did you review this decision with another, impartial admin? --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 17:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:::If you have a look at the admin who made the first post of this section, you would have had your answer already, and as such, I consider this a act of [[WP:AGF|bad faith]]. Furthermore, see, [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag]], you will see I reported him, but did not do the ban. As such, an uninvolved admin has reviewed it, and come to the same conclusion. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 17:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Kim, you were the one who imposed the ban, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABattle_of_Deir_Yassin&diff=64143684&oldid=64070370], so I'm not sure why the question is in bad faith. --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::So, you say I did this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGuy_Montag&diff=64132672&oldid=64053998]. Excuse me, what I did was positing the tag on the page AFTER he was banned. That is all. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 19:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::Kim also seems to have a history of using his administrative powers to gain an advantaqge in disputes that he is a primary party to as anyone who was involved with the "Israeli apartheid" mess knows. As someone once said- "Assuming good faith does not mean be stupid".- [[User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg]] | [[User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Talk]] 20:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::::She was the one who reported Montag as well. I suppose someone who is on probation is subject to the subjective judgment of any admin, but I think Kim needs to think long and hard about the difference between her role as an editor and as an admin. --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::::I was also concerned to see that Kim van der Linde, who is involved in this dispute, got Guy banned from the page, started a poll about the title, ignored the results of it, then misused her admin tools to move the page against the poll results, then felt obliged to post a tag declaring that Guy is banned from the page. It's up to the admin to do that; maybe he forgot, or maybe he intended not to. I'm worried about the extent to which Kim van der Linde seems to be taking every opportunity to cause a problem for pro-Israel editors, and is consistently confusing her admin/editor roles. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 13:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:The ban was undone by [[User:Briangotts]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FArbitration_enforcement&diff=64399424&oldid=64254221]. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 16:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
===Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin massacre: move poll closure review requested===
On June 29, Guy Montag moved ithout discussion [[Deir Yassin massacre]] to [[Battle of Deir Yassin]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Deir_Yassin&diff=61282933&oldid=57446094], and substantially rewrote the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Deir_Yassin&diff=61495354&oldid=61282933]. This move/rewrite was contensted, see [[Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Total_Rewrite]] and [[Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Battle???]]. I was asked to have a look at the move, and decided to start a poll so that everybody could have their say, and could see whether the move was carried by consensus (see: [[Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Requested_move]]). The poll started at July 8, and by July 12, there was a clear consensus that the name should be [[Deir Yassin massacre]]. At 12 and 13 July, Guy Montag allerted 5 editors, with known preferneces, on the poll, who all voted in the days after in favour of the by Guy Montag preferred name: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leifern&diff=prev&oldid=63441574], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg&diff=prev&oldid=63432051], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IZAK&diff=prev&oldid=63440858], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crzrussian&diff=prev&oldid=63544296], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Irongaard&diff=prev&oldid=63825645]. Based on this, I reported him here: [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag]], which resulted in an independent admin to ban him from the page under his probation from a previous ArbCom case (see above). After that, I have closed the move poll, which was now corrupted by votestaking, and based my conclusion from before the votestaking (roughly 4 days into the poll), which was in favour of moving back. The final tally was no consensus (15-15 (12+3 to Deir Yassin incident), which indicates that the original contested unilateral move was not supported by the community. As suchm, I have moved the article back to the original name.
 
As I have been involved, I request that this move is reviewed by independent admins, and undone if they come to a different conclusion. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 05:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:The page has been moved back in the meanwhile by involved editors, however, I will move the page back if there is no objection of uninvolved admin's of the decision I described above. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 12:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
::This is what you did on the Israel apartheid page(s): you moved pages using admin tools, even though you were directly involved in the dispute. Also, your accusations of vote-stacking could amount to no more than like-minded people arriving because they agreed with what was being done. Admins are not allowed to use their tools to gain an advantage in a dispute they're involved in. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 17:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::The incident SlimVirgin points at has been discussed here, see[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive109#Admin_protecting.2C_then_editing_article]]. The votestaking was confirmed by an uninvolved admin, see [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag]]. For the rest, I have posted my action here for review by uninvolved admins as it could be disputed, and if an univolved admin concludes that the move is invalid, I will move it back without hestitation. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::::I have no involvement in this, and I have concluded that the move was invalid, because you're involved in the dispute but used an admin tool to make the move. You acknowledged that you were involved in the dispute when you asked another admin to ban Guy Montag from the page. Therefore, please undo the move, and leave it for someone who has no connection with the article to decide how to proceed. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::I do not consider you uninvolved due to our disagreements at various other Israel-Palestine related articles, and the ongoing ArbCom case here: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid]]. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 18:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::Kim, you're well out of order. You don't make me involved just because ''you'' choose to say so. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
You shouldn't have moved it yourself, however it should be moved back. - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 18:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:Moved back to the original name [[Deir Yassin massacre]] or moved back from my move to the [[Battle of Deir Yassin]]? -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 19:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::Moved back to [[Deir Yassin massacre]]. But you shouldn't do it and you shouldn't have done it. - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 19:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the clarification. I will not do it myself, but leave it to another admin to do it. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 19:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::Moved back from your move. Please undo whatever it was you did. You posted for input, and you've been given input. Kindly don't ignore it. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:::There is nothing to undo at the moment, as the page has been reverted back to [[Battle of Deir Yassin]]. However, the move revert war that has ensued may require further consideration, maybe even by the ArbCom. [[User:Pecher|Pecher]] <sup>[[User talk:Pecher|Talk]]</sup> 19:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
I have no involvement in this dispute and I don't remember ever editing pages on the Middle-East - but I do have some experience carrying out moves requested on [[WP:RM]]. I think that Kim van der Linde should not have closed the debate herself, having taken part in it. In spite of that, having spent some time looking into this, I agree with her analysis. The vote solicitation by Guy Montag clearly tainted the vote. His original move was objected to almost immediately. The user is on probation for biased editing on articles of this kind. This all seems to speak fairly clearly to moving the article to the name it had at its creation and which it still had last month. I've seen no rebuttal to this - can anyone offer one? Sarah? [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 20:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:Hi Haukurth, I have no opinion about the title, and don't know anything about the arguments. My only concern is that we're calling an editor's attempt to get help from other editors "vote-stacking," when editors are in fact encouraged to involve other people in disputes and polls. Had he posted to 50 talk pages, I can see the grounds for concern, but five seems legitimate enough to me, and the fact that he was doing it openly on talk pages is another factor in his favor. There's probably a guideline about this somewhere, so maybe I should look around. I'm also concerned about Kim's comment that "Guy Montag allerted 5 editors, with known preferneces ..." How could she know what these editors' preferences were regarding what to call the Deir Yassin battle/massacre, if they hadn't already commented on it; and if they had already commented, then why is she concerned about their involvement? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 20:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
::Very often you can make a good guess what opinion people will have on a given dispute and selectively contact those you think will agree with you. I know, I used to do this sort of thing back in my move-warring days... In this case Guy was, it seems, 100% successful in contacting the right people. The best way to bring attention to a vote is through noticeboards which anyone can watch. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 20:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Perhaps, but I can think of several others who might have supported who he appears not to have contacted, so there doesn't seem to have been any kind of a concerted effort. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 23:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Francis and Haukur, I recognize that I should not have moved the article myself, but should have brought it to the attention of this noticeboard to start with. My judgement error on that part. My appologies for that. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 20:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:Given that you did exactly the same thing on various pages related to Israeli apartheid (four times, I believe), and seeing the amount of trouble it has caused, it's hard to see how you could make the same mistake again and not realize. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 20:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
::See [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Evidence#Log of major actions .28not edits.29|this log]] for the moves in question. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
The page should be moved back, and the move poll be taken there. Anyone else want to do it? - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 20:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
I really haven't seen any evidence that what Guy was doing was in fact votestacking at all. I personally voted in that article because it was on my watchlist. I think that it is ridiculous that Guy is being banned for something that almost everybody does when there is a vote going on, after all I wonder how so many people that voted "support" found out that there was a survey going on at that particular moment especially when so many people had never edited the article in question before? That "votestacking" probably occured through E-mail.
 
On another note, Kimv really seems to have an issue with using his administrative powers to gain an advantage in a dipute that he is a primary party to, while it is a step forward that he just admitted that he shouldn't have done it, I really must question his veracity considering the fact that in another post above he basically said that he didn't act inappropriately because people weren't "assuming good faith" whatever that means.- [[User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg]] | [[User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Talk]] 21:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Kim, I think this is the type of situation that [[Wikipedia:Naming conflict]] (originally developed by [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] and myself) was written to resolve. The guideline states that "Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis." It sets out three key principles, the most important of which is "The most common use of a name takes precedence."
 
:Note that the issue of POV naming is specifically ''excluded'' from consideration by the guideline - if a subject is particularly contentious, there will almost always be someone who disagrees with the article title. The guideline sets out the use of objective criteria, such as frequency of use, and discourages the use of subjective criteria, such as political acceptability.
 
:The name "Battle of Deir Yassin" seems to be virtually unknown (only 81 Google hits) while "Deir Yassin massacre" seems to be much more widely used (21,100 Google hits - Wikipedia entries excluded in both cases). Using a novel term for a well-known historical incident seems to me to be a classic example of impermissible [[WP:NOR|original research]] ("defining new terms"). Unfortunately it appears that the POV-pushers have taken over on this article; I think the page's move permissions will need to be locked and the case referred for arbitration. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::This is exactly the kind of title that shouldn't be decided by a Google search, in my view, because of the number of highly POV sites that get included. What I do with contentious titles is try to find out what mainstream academics call it. Maybe that could be done here: try to find out what academic historians refer to it as? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 23:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::If it's any help, I just did a Google Books search for the two terms. 56 books use "Deir Yassin massacre" and only one uses "Battle of Deir Yassin" (citing "a motion [which] was put before the Jerusalem city council to honor the five Zionist patriots who "had fallen during the battle of Deir Yassin"." - the motion failed after a public outcry.) 142 books use the terms "Deir Yassin" and "massacre" in close proximity. Google Scholar returns 51 articles using "Deir Yassin massacre" and none at all using "Battle of Deir Yassin". All of the encyclopedia entries that I've found relating to Deir Yassin refer to the "massacre" at "Deir Yassin" (cites: ''Brewer's Dictionary of Modern Phrase and Fable'', ''A Dictionary of Contemporary History - 1945 to the present'', ''A Dictionary of Political Biography'', ''The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia''). None refer to it as a "battle".
 
:::So it seems that the term "Battle of Deir Yassin" is not only little used but is associated with a specific, highly controversial POV - rather akin to calling the [[Srebrenica massacre]] the "Battle of Srebrenica", as some denialists are wont to do in that case. This seems a very clear-cut case of a non-mainstream term being adopted for presumably POV reasons. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 23:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::::You seem to have made a watertight case from a [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] so unless anyone can find and equally strong [[WP:VERIFY|verifiable]] rebuttal, this should be accepted, and the contention should cease. Naturally what people think it should be called is pure [[WP:NOR|OR]] and irrelevant. We are looking for the commonly accepted term, the principle of least surprise. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 01:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::A "watertight case"? Are you serious? All he did was illustrate a pov, its not like someone can say that hey you can't disagree with him, can;t you see that my side has already made a watertight case? Anyways it is irrelevent what the majority of people call the incident, what matters is that we chose a title that does not favor any pov, I am not saying that "battle of Deir Yassin" is completly npov I am just saying that the "Deir Yassin Massacre" really isn't npov either.- [[User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg]] | [[User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Talk]] 08:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
All right, I'll go ahead and move the page back, citing this discussion. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 08:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Just a suggestion, you might want to move protect the page after that to avoid a new move war. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 08:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::I'd prefer if someone else did that. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:: I do not believe a move war is forthcoming Kim as long as you stay out of it. I reverted your initial move because of your completely unacceptable behaviour there. If Guy Montag's initial move was done without consensus, then it should have been reverted, and done so swiftly. You starting a poll on the matter, rejecting the legitimacy of the results when they failed to go your way, and then making an out of process move however, was farcical, especially given your current involvement in an ArbComm case on this very same matter. The move war was not the result the intractability of the issue, but rather a response to your complete lack of standing to make the aforementioned move. This entire move war could have been avoided if you had bothered to act in a way even vaguely resembling what is to be expected of admins. Protecting the page is thus likely unnecessary, as without your involvement in the move, I do not expect there to be serious objection to the page remaining there while debate continues on the talk page. [[User:Bibigon|Bibigon]] 11:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::I agree that the important thing here is that KimvdLinde stays away from the situation completely. I would also suggest we try to find out what academic historians call it i.e. academics who are currently employed as historians by universities. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 11:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::::I'd also suggest this discussion not be split up. For some reason, it's been started on AN too. See [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#What_to_do_if_a_move_poll_is_determined_by_partisan_reasons.3F]]. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 11:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Just to let people know, I'm proposing to start a workshop along the lines of the ArbComm workshops to work through the specific policy issues involved (e.g [[WP:NC]], [[WP:NCON]], [[WP:NOR]] etc). The workshop will be at [[Talk:Deir Yassin massacre/Workshop]] later today. Hopefully it'll help to identify the specific points of disagreement, provide some advice on what the policies and guidelines require, and focus the discussion on policies rather than personal POVs. I suggest we continue this discussion there. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 13:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::::ChrisO, you've protected the page against moves, and on the version you prefer. You're involved in the dispute and you're currently in front of the arbcom for using your admin powers in another content dispute. Please undo the protection. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 13:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::If you feel it's inappropriate, please feel free to unprotect it. I've had no involvement in editing or moving the article, and my only involvement to date has been in providing pointers to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, providing some data on usage and trying to help the parties to find a resolution. If you (or any other administrator) feel that makes me too close to the issue to legitimately move-protect the page, then please unprotect it. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::Chris, you're involved in the dispute, and we're not allowed to use admin powers where we're involved, especially not to gain any kind of advantage, and given you suggested the page be moved back to the version you prefer, and then protected it, that's what you've done. I'm not prepared to unprotect it and be accused of wheel warring, so I'm requesting that you do. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::::In that case, OK. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 13:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::::Thank you, I appreciate that. I hope everyone will leave it where it is now until a consensus is reached. Your workshop idea is a good one. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::::::Thanks, I'll make sure I notify people when I've got the workshop prepared. You're very welcome to offer advice and views (on my talk page if you don't wish to get directly involved). Given your experience in dealing with controversial issues, I'd certainly value your advice on the policy issues. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
If Kim needs to "stay away from the situation completely", as Slim suggests, then so should Slim, myself and ChrisO. However, I don't see the point in delaying this - Guy Montag changed a long-established article name without consensus. His user page, [[User:Guy Montag]] identifies him as a supporter of the Irgun, the Revisionist Zionist armed militia identified as perpetrating the massacre so his interest in choosing an equivicating title for the article is clear. If a Stalinist tried to retitle "Katyn Forest Masscare" to "Battle of Katyn Forest" we would not permit it, even if he was able to rally the support of his friends in a poll. [[User:Homeontherange|Homey]] 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:No, you're not going to play that game with me. I have no involvement in this content dispute, and while I have no intention of becoming involved, I'm also not going to stay away from it because it would please you. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::You have a systemic POV when it comes to articles related to Israel so you are not neutral in this matter even if you haven't explicilty addressed content. I was not asking you to stay away from the article (you are projecting your habit onto me, it seems) - rather I'm saying you are in no position to dictate to Kim that she should stay away from it.[[User:Homeontherange|Homey]] 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Could the three of you please stop ragging on each other? It's incivil, inappropriate and definitely not in the right place. It's certainly not going to resolve anything! -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
===What to do if a move poll is determined by partisan reasons?===
:(Copied from [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#What_to_do_if_a_move_poll_is_determined_by_partisan_reasons.3F]])
 
I'm rather troubled by the problems which [[User:KimvdLinde|KimvdLinde]] has reported over at [[WP:ANI#Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin massacre: move poll closure review requested]]. As I've posted there, the article's current title of "Battle of Deir Yassin" violates [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]], [[Wikipedia:Naming conflict]] and [[Wikipedia:No original research]] (it's a novel term with negligible use outside Wikipedia - only 81 hits versus over 21,000 for the alternative "Deir Yassin massacre"). It also probably violates [[Wikipedia:NPOV]], as it seems to be a novel and minority-POV term for an historical incident which is generally known by a different name. (It's comparable, for instance, to renaming [[Srebrenica massacre]] to "Battle of Srebrenica" or [[American War of Independence]] to "War of American Aggression".)
 
In the light of these issues I would normally simply move the article myself. However, the page has already had a move war today and sparking another wouldn't be helpful. Ordinarily, a move poll would be a good alternative. However, there has already been a move poll in which the participants deadlocked, with many on both sides explicitly stating POV reasons for their votes (see [[Talk:Deir Yassin massacre#Clarification]]). There seems to have been relatively little consideration of what Wikipedia policy and guidelines require. Starting a new move poll would undoubtedly bring out the POV warriors again and,
unfortunately, it's more than likely that they will again ignore policy and vote for their personal POVs. Are there any other alternatives short of taking the whole thing to the Arbitration Committee? -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 23:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
: Hmmm, this is why voting in the main namespace is a bad plan. :-/ Each time people have to find out the hard way. <sigh> Requested Moves should be strongly discouraged as a means for well, anything. Oh well.
: Perhaps something can still be salvaged? You can look at who is supporting and opposing, and start a discussion with each, one at a time. Perhaps a more neutral name is possible? [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 00:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::Unfortunately I've found in instances like this ([[Republic of Macedonia]] comes to mind) that POV warriors usually won't agree to anything other than their own POV. Am I right to think that the Mediation Committee can't do binding mediations? Perhaps this is where we need some sort of intermediate stage between the Mediation Committee (non-binding) and Arbitration Committee (binding but not usually dealing with content disputes). We really need to have some way of dealing with these disputes that would involve taking them away from the POV warriors and giving them to neutral editors or administrators who know, understand and respect Wikipedia policies. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 00:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::::Although formal mediation isn't binding, I think most editors would respect the conclusions of it. I think the key in this case is to use the term most often used by academic historians i.e. academics who are actually employed as historians by universities. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 11:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::The quick and dirty method is to attract as many uninvolved editors as quickly as possible, because POV warriors work by fighting in packs and outnumbering their opponents. But polls like that are almost always confrontational, so it would be better to try some form of mediation (formal or informal) as Kim suggested. Even if it fails then it's something to show to other users who can determine for themselves what caused it to fail, if it's because someone wasn't cooperating then that will be detrimental to them. A good first step would be to do a survey of the academic literature to see what name is more commonly used, Google is unlikely to settle this one. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 01:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::::Thanks for the suggestion. I've done a quick check on the literature using Google Books/Google Scholar, Amazon's "search inside" feature and a number of encyclopedias on Xreferplus. It almost exclusively refers to the events at Deir Yassin as the "Deir Yassin massacre", the massacre at Deir Yassin and similar formulations. None use "Battle of Deir Yassin". So it seems plain enough that the article's current title is a novel term. The problem is, of course, that the POV warriors ''don't care'' about WP:NOR, WP:NC and all the rest. Mediation is certainly appropriate though I wonder if it's ever likely to work in a situation where the participants are riding roughshod over Wikipedia's fundamental policies. I suspect it'll probably end up in arbitration, one way or another. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 07:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:I thionk is a main problem for wikipedia, as the focus is consensus and prevention of disruption, and not so much upholding basic policies (Such as NPOV of which Jimbo states: ''NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."''). However, in practise, NPOV is negotiated, just as other unnegotiable policies such as [[WP:NOR]]. The bigger question is, can these policies be enforced, or are they negotiable? -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
::[[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] is right. Discussion is the solution. As an experienced mediator, Kim is likely picking up on the fact that you are in too big of a hurry to settle the dispute. Having an article in the [[The Wrong Version]] is going to happen for some of the parties in the dispute. Mediators (and experienced editors) need to reinforce the idea that Wikipedia is not going to be ruined by having an article in the The Wrong Version. IMO, mediation goes astray once you began reverting or making moves based on the idea that there is a wrong version. Patience and discussion are mediation's friend. : - ) [[User:FloNight|<font color="darkblue">'''FloNight'''</font>]] [[User talk:FloNight|<font color="green"><sup>''talk''</sup></font>]] 10:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Does this mean that unnegotiable policies are negotiable? And if mediation is not working because people insist on violating NPOV, ArbCom? -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 11:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
::::The problem here is that you hold a particular POV, you got involved in the dispute, you got an editor banned from the page, and then you moved the page as an admin, so that has helped to entrench positions and increase hostility and suspicion. It would be a good idea if you would remove yourself from the debate entirely and allow the matter to be discussed by editors who were not involved in it. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 11:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::SlimVirgin, your opinion about me is clear. Thank you. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 11:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::It isn't just my opinion. I don't see that you have any support for what has gone on here. You've caused trouble first at Israeli apartheid and now here by acting as an editor/mediator/admin as and when it suits you, mixing up the roles in pursuit of a particular POV. It's a textbook example of what admins shouldn't do, and yet at the same time you take process fetishism to new heights when you think it'll help you. It's not on, it really isn't. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 12:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::For those uninvolved, SlimVirgin and I are both involved in the same ArbCom case: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid]].-- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Kim, I am barely involved in that case, whereas you are at the center of it, and it's a case involving exactly the same problems as here: your confusion of roles. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 15:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::I urge the interested editors to have a look for themselves at the ArbCom case before the decide what is going on. I am not going to drag the extended discussions from there to here. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
[[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] [[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]] I mean that impartial experienced editors do no care if the articles is temporarily The Wrong Version. This dispute is one of many daily editing disputes that occur on Wikipedia. You are involved in it so it seems extra important to you. If I can make a suggestion. I think you need to take a break from this topic. Perhaps some distance from these articles will help. There are 1,261,193 articles in English. Many of them are in desperate need of editing by an experienced editors/admin. [[User:FloNight|<font color="darkblue">'''FloNight'''</font>]] [[User talk:FloNight|<font color="green"><sup>''talk''</sup></font>]] 12:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
:FloNight, I share your opinion about "the wrong version". -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
"''Kim, I am barely involved in that case, whereas you are at the center of it, and it's a case involving exactly the same problems as here: your confusion of roles. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 15:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)''"
::This is a misrepresentation. Slim is one of the admins against whom sanctions are being proposed - Fred Bauder proposed a one month ban - there have been no action proposed against Kim, nor is she accused of having participated in the wheel war that has gotten Slim in trouble. [[User:Homeontherange|Homey]] 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Homey, quit it. You and Kim van der Linde have caused the entire dispute at Israeli apartheid, and you kept it going at maximum heat and intensity, because that's how you get your kicks at Wikipedia. I've never seen such disregard for the rules about using admin tools between the pair of you. The evidence hasn't yet closed, by the way, and I'm not going to argue it out with you here, because it would make your day. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Slim, you brought up the arbcomm case and misrepresented it by claiming that Kim was "central" to it while you are "barely involved" when in fact you are facing sanctions and she isn't. As for "disregard for the rules about using admin tools", you are the one who participated in a wheel war, not Kim (or myself) so stop deflecting (or projecting). [[User:Homeontherange|Homey]] 17:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::''When in fact you are facing sanctions and she isn't''
 
:::::Are you serious? I'm sure that not even you can actually believe that that makes sense, You proposed a bunch of wierd and inappropriate "solutions" that nobody supported and then you claim that that shows that Slim is more involved with the dispute than you or Kim. The fact that there isn't a bunch of stupid proposals involving you and kim really just shows that other people aren't as spiteful or inappropriate as the two of you. I guess the fact that there is nothing on that page that explicity calls for your adminship to be taken away and for you to be banned must show that you are a completely neutral and uninvolved party or at least that you did nothing inappropriate at all in that conflict, is that right?- [[User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg]] | [[User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Talk]] 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::Okay, this really is my last comment. No sanctions have been proposed against Kim because no evidence has been put up about her yet. Only half the evidence is in, Homey. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::Yes, Homey, please lay off. Ragging on SlimVirgin only gets us deeper. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== Trolling by [[user:ARYAN818]] and [[user:Elven6]] ==
 
Hi - I request administrative action against [[user:ARYAN818]] and [[user:Elven6]] for acting like [[WP:TROLL]]s. I had lodged a previous report on ANI[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive117#Trolling_on_Talk:Sikhism] that apart from the issuance of warnings and a debate on ARYAN818's username, did not restrain these users from trollish behavior on [[Talk:Sikhism]], [[Talk:Hinduism and the Sikh Panth]] and on their own talkpages and the talkpage of [[user:Sukh]]. These users have spoken offensively to [[user:Sukh]], [[User:Rajatjghai]], [[user:Gsingh]] and myself.
 
Despite repeated and continuous warnings, both ARYAN818 and Elven6 have repeatedly engaged in revert wars, removing comments from their own talkpages, coming close to [[WP:3RR]] violations, repeatedly violated [[WP:NPA]] (includings '''religious''', '''personal''', '''political''' and '''racial abuse'''), [[WP:CIVIL]], [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:POINT]], and have been acting like [[WP:VANDAL]]s and [[WP:TROLL]]s.
 
 
===[[user:ARYAN818]]===
Relevant Diffs (most recent):[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ARYAN818&diff=prev&oldid=63135858],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikhism&diff=prev&oldid=63371217],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism_and_the_Sikh_Panth&diff=prev&oldid=63371291],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikhism&diff=prev&oldid=63551607],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism_and_the_Sikh_Panth&diff=prev&oldid=63551691],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikhism&diff=prev&oldid=63554942],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikhism&diff=prev&oldid=63639832],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism_and_the_Sikh_Panth&diff=prev&oldid=63865332],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hinduism_and_the_Sikh_Panth&diff=prev&oldid=63865906],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikhism&diff=prev&oldid=63866064],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikhism&diff=prev&oldid=63866162],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hinduism_and_the_Sikh_Panth&diff=prev&oldid=63866863],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hinduism_and_the_Sikh_Panth&diff=prev&oldid=63867051],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hinduism_and_the_Sikh_Panth&diff=prev&oldid=63867496],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hinduism_and_the_Sikh_Panth&diff=prev&oldid=64169329],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikhism&diff=prev&oldid=64169883],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hinduism_and_the_Sikh_Panth&diff=prev&oldid=64241412],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hinduism_and_the_Sikh_Panth&curid=4629414&diff=64241412&oldid=64211197]
 
Relevant Diffs (continuous):[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikhism&curid=154662&diff=62030156&oldid=61987530], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASikhism&diff=62030156&oldid=61928311],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikhism&diff=prev&oldid=61720031],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikhism&diff=prev&oldid=61930726], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikhism&diff=prev&oldid=61932510],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikhism&diff=prev&oldid=61928311]
 
===[[user:Elven6]]===
Relevant Diffs (most recent): [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikhism&diff=prev&oldid=63632777],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikhism&diff=prev&oldid=63773004],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sukh&diff=prev&oldid=63799225],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sukh&diff=prev&oldid=63800060],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hinduization_of_Sikhism&diff=prev&oldid=63801410],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sukh&diff=prev&oldid=63801772],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hinduization_of_Sikhism&diff=prev&oldid=63802175],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hinduization_of_Sikhism&diff=prev&oldid=63806518],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hinduism_and_the_Sikh_Panth&diff=prev&oldid=64025369],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sukh&diff=prev&oldid=64025751],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hinduism_and_the_Sikh_Panth&diff=prev&oldid=64211197]
 
Previous Report (continuous):[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikhism&curid=154662&diff=62030156&oldid=61987530], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASikhism&diff=62030156&oldid=61928311], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikhism&diff=prev&oldid=61725574],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikhism&diff=prev&oldid=61731485]
 
'''See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduization of Sikhism]]''' - Elven6 created an article that constituted [[WP:COPYVIO]].
 
 
Thank you - I request administrators to take decisive action, as this has been going on for over one month, with a previous ANI report and numerous warnings. [[User:Rama's Arrow|<font color="orange">'''This Fire Burns Always '''</font>]] 06:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
: Yeah, I'm going to block both of them for 48hrs. Frankly some of the material discussed isn't for me to understand - well I couldn't see anything obvious from the article edits, but some of the talk page edits seem rather bizarre to say the least and some of the knockabout tone and inappropriate language is very disconcerting. '''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]''' <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[User talk:Blnguyen|rant-line]] 06:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
: Basically Aryan argues from a hard Hindu POV, and Elven is oppposite that. The diffs provided illustrate a combination of revert warring, personal attacks, abusive messaging, vandalism and constant disruption of Wikipedia work. [[User:Rama's Arrow|<font color="orange">'''This Fire Burns Always '''</font>]] 06:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::This time I ask for really decisive and follow-up action, because several good editors have taken a lot of hell for over a month over several articles. A thousand warnings have not affected these gentlemen, who haven't even acted in a civil manner aside from the disputes. [[User:Rama's Arrow|<font color="orange">'''This Fire Burns Always '''</font>]] 06:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Having seen both these users (ARYAN818, Elven6), I endorse these blocks. Both of these users spent most of their time in disrupting the articles and attacking other editors, without adding anything fruitful to the articles in question. ARYAN818 has already been blocked several times for his user name, though he claims 818 is just his area code and has no neo-nazi connotations (though his frequent edit-wars in [[Aryan]] provide an interesting insight). I suggest other admins keep an eye on the pages referred to above as frequent edit warring continues to foment there. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 07:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:ARYAN818 should be '''''permanently''''' blocked for his user name. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:His articles of interest (and manner of edit warring) lead me to believe that he is not a neo-Nazi. While this can also be easily faked, his name in the email address he used to write to the unblock mailing list also had "Aryan" as a first name. Maybe he should be blocked for edit warring, but I don't think he should be indef blocked unless he shows more serious behaviour. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 13:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
::Neo-Nazis use the code number "88" ("HH" = "Heil Hitler". This is a clearly inappropriate user name. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 19:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
:::And Chinese people use "88" as a good luck number. I've seen plenty of people with "88" at the end of their user name (I mean email address and user names outside of Wikipedia, I don't know anyone here IRL), and they're about as Neo-Nazi as I am. I'd never heard of this 88=HH="Heil Hitler" stuff until here (and as a side rant, Buddhists can't show a certain religious symbol because of the damn swastika). And he's not 88, he's 818. Look, I'm not saying that it's not serious, but there is such a thing as ''too'' sensitive. This guy is an edit warrior, sure, but looking at his edits, he doesn't strike to me as a neo-Nazi (at least, not yet). That means that he's certainly a good recipient of a block if he's a persistent edit warrior, but it'll take more evidence to indef-block him for having a neo-Nazi username. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 04:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
::::I thought this had been pointed out already, but in the same way that 88 means HH, 818 means HAH, or Heil Adolf Hitler. And there's the ''tiny'' matter of the fact that the code is preceded by the word Aryan. If his username was CuteFluffyKitten818 it might be different, but it's not. The claim that it's a common name sounds fishy to me - I've never heard of anyone called 'Aryan', and after going through two disambig links I only managed to find a single person called '[[Arya (actor)|Arya]]'. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 12:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Nope, that's the first time I've had that explained to be, and thanks for that. Man, there's a code for friggin' everything these days. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 01:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
::::This is a tough username issue. I appreciate the argument of {{user|ARYAN818}} regarding his user name (on [[User talk:ARYAN818]]). I saw the name on RC patrol a while ago, and was about to indef block for username, but after reviewing contribs, I'm pretty sure he's not making a neo-Nazi reference -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|<b>Samir</b>]] <small>[[User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)|<font color="black">धर्म</font>]]</small> 01:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
I will study the matter and shall offer my comments within two to three days. Prima facie, I find that the two users concerned do not care for the guidance and comments of fellow-wikipedians. This is not a good sign. --[[User:Bhadani|Bhadani]] 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
===Being referred to by name again===
"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4chan&diff=64371678&oldid=64355467 Ryulong! you are not Moot, stop changing other peoples edits]." Does this count as a personal attack, too? [[User:Ryulong|Ryulong]] 23:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 
*All of these are vandalism, but please don't look for the NPA policy. It's not needed, in the first place, and we all take chances when we edit Wikipedia. The gibbering on the talk page and the random edit warring is sufficient for intervention without trying to assess whether or not a person has been insulted. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 02:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== User RJ evading ban ==
Warning: Due to the complexity of this case the following entry is not concise. My apologies.
 
=== Background Information ===
This notice concerns [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RJII RJII], a user who has been banned indefinately for a series of wiki violations and his own [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARJII&diff=60597018&oldid=60591200 eventual admission] of intent to abuse. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vision_Thing Vision Thing] is a user whose [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060323103352&limit=50&target=Vision_Thing first edit] occured on March 19, 2006. Because his first edit was to immediately [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anarcho-capitalism#Is_FAQ_on_Infoshop.org_written_from_socialist_perspective.3F initiate a discussion] on a topic which had recently been the focus of user [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RJII RJII], he was soon accused by user [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AaronS AaronS] of being a sockpuppet. User [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Infinity0 Infinity0] also suspected Vision Thing of being a sockpuppet, and requested a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RJII checkuser]. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the RJ "project", as user [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ArdoMelnikov Logical2u] said on the checkuser page, "all accounts by the RJII "team" will likely be undectable and un-check-user-verifiable, due to "home" computers, etc."
 
Due to lack of evidence from usercheck, the case appears to have been dropped. However, I believe that subsequent edits by user Vision Thing have more than demonstrated, via circumstantial evidence, his intimate connection to RJII. Unfortunately this is the only kind of evidence that could be applied to this case. I have compiled an extensive list of identical edits made by user RJII and Vision Thing. Please note that in my time searching dozens of articles edited by these two accounts I never found a single instance in which either editor reverted or even openly disagreed with one another, despite a tendency by both accounts to engage in edit wars and reverts. When I eventually became certain of Vision Thing being a sockpuppet I attempted to inform twice. Despite making several other edits on his talk page in the meantime, both my attempts remain [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vision_Thing#RJ ignored].
 
=== Evidence of Vision Thing and RJ being the same user ===
As evidence I would first like to note RJII's repeated insistance on indicating that the writers of the anarchist FAQ are "social anarchists". This is the very topic that Vision Thing first used as a subject of his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anarcho-capitalism#Is_FAQ_on_Infoshop.org_written_from_socialist_perspective.3F first edit]. The similarity of their edits can be seen from these examples by RJ,
 
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Anarchist_FAQ&diff=45633022&oldid=45554022 27 March RJ], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Anarchist_FAQ&diff=46216318&oldid=46216259 30 March], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Anarchist_FAQ&diff=46703533&oldid=46617242 3 April], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Anarchist_FAQ&diff=47577985&oldid=47577840 8 April], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Anarchist_FAQ&diff=50272693&oldid=50272035 26 April]
which can be compared with this edit by Vision Thing after RJ was banned: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Anarchist_FAQ&diff=62901451&oldid=61682987 9 July]
 
Such instances are not isolated. For example, RJ and Vision Thing inserted the same edits concerning David Friedman on medieval Iceland:
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Anarchist_FAQ&diff=49922325&oldid=49921819 24 April] RJ
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Anarchist_FAQ&diff=50057448&oldid=50054505 25 April] Vision Thing
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Anarchist_FAQ&diff=50264918&oldid=50232795 26 April] RJ
 
Vision Thing has made many of the same edits that RJ was formally known for inserting since RJ's ban. Benjamin Tucker's "capitalism is at least tolerable" is a quote originally introduced into several articles by RJ:
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_Tucker&diff=54139824&oldid=53981946 20 May], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism_in_the_United_States&diff=54140153&oldid=53980168 20 May]
After RJ's ban it has been inserted into articles by Vision Thing in his place: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=63957031&oldid=63956265 15 July]
 
Individualist anarchism "reborn", is another quote originally inserted by RJ into the [[anarchism]] article:
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=60207464&oldid=60207143 23 June]
has since been championed by Vision thing after RJs ban:
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=64002460&oldid=64002169 15 July], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism_in_the_United_States&diff=61875696&oldid=61870623 3 July]
 
Way back in January of 2005 RJ started posting many edits about the "U.S. Postal Service monopoly"
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Postal_Service&diff=9405888&oldid=9190277 11 January]
not surpirsingly, after RJ was banned nearly identical edits started coming from Vision Thing
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Postal_Service&diff=61908365&oldid=61568059 3 July]
 
And yet another instance, before his ban RJ inserted the following edit into [[Anti-capitalism]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-capitalism&diff=58697379&oldid=58266014 15 June]
After RJs ban Vision Thing once again inserted an identical edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-capitalism&diff=60469058&oldid=60396833 25 June]
 
These articles and edits are only a small sample, constrained due to my limits on time. Here is a partial list of more articles that each has contributed to, often making the same or very similar edits. Please feel free to look through them to get an idea of the similarity in tone, style, and point of view: [[An Anarchist FAQ]], [[Economics of fascism]], [[Anarcho-capitalism]], [[Bryan Caplan]], [[Laissez-faire]], [[Capitalism]], [[Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism]], [[Anarchism in the United States]], [[Template:Socialism]], [[Criticisms of socialism]], [[Talk:Wage labour]], [[Collectivism]], [[Anti-capitalism]], [[Corporatism]], [[Friedrich Hayek]], [[United States Postal Service]], [[Mixed economy]], [[Free market]], [[Property]], [[Altruism]], [[Natural rights]], [[Negative and positive rights]], [[List of anarchists]].
 
In fact, the total number of edits to pages they hold in common is far greater than those to pages they do not. Yet, despite the fact that these two seem to have identical interests, edits, and political viewpoints, they have never engaged in so much as a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RJII hello]", with their only contact being to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVision_Thing&diff=50624790&oldid=50137807 support one another] on arbitration issues or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVision_Thing&diff=45881033&oldid=45549937 deny that they were the same person].
 
=== Evidence of violation of wiki policy by Vision Thing beyond circumventing ban ===
To my knowledge use of a sockpuppet to circumvent a ban is a violation of wiki policy in itself, however I believe there is plenty of evidence that this sockpuppet is also a violation of the rules on:
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Sock#Voting voting] (as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVision_Thing&diff=50624790&oldid=50137807 mentioned above])
*and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Sock#Deception_and_impersonation Creating the illusion of broader support] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RJII_2#Response], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Infinity0/Workshop#Entry_of_RJII]
 
=== RJs explicit intentions now carried on in Vision Thing account ===
 
It is important to note that when faced with a ban RJ [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARJII&diff=60597018&oldid=60591200 eventually admitted] what had previously been obvious to many, that his intent was to use "...advanced techniques of psychological warfare... most importantly, most of our edits were not done through the RJII account but through multiple "sockpuppets" (from a seperate IP(s) for increased security against detection). Hence, the RJII account served largely to wear particular individuals down, pyschologically, who were judged to be enemies."
 
In admits again to having multiple sockpuppets already prepared and engaged in wikipedia, "In the meantime, the "sockpuppets," who evinced a somewhat amiable personality did not engage in personal attacks and other such disagreeable behavior that may have risked blocks by adminstrators, went about editing the encyclopedia... It is safe now for us to divulge that some of the sockpuppets will continue editing Wikipedia until at least the end of the year."
 
The edits of RJ and Vision Thing are so nearly identical, and so obviously from the same narrow POV, that it can't helped but be felt that RJIIs intent to be "successful in driving several individuals off of Wikipedia, or away from particular articles, who through their hands up in disgust (probably literally)" is being carried on via the account of Vision Thing. Circumstantial evidence is never certain, but I believe this is as much evidence as one could provide given the difficulty in tracking down all the sock puppets employed by RJIIs account. In the unlikely case that the circumstantial evidence I have compiled does not remove doubt that Vision Thing is a sock puppet of RJ he is at least a Meat Puppet (perhaps in the form of banned user [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Community_ban_on_User:Hogeye Hogeye] who worked closely with RJ in the past). Regardless, Vision Thing is clearly carrying out RJs explicitly stated goals of disrupting wikipedia and gaming the system. [[User:Blahblahblahblahblahblah|Blahblahblahblahblahblah]] 05:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Interesting analysis. I would tend to concur with you. However as you said, this cannot be proven. I suspect the only thing that can be done in this case is to go through the [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] process and get a similar result to that which was meted out to RJII. You could use the previous two ArbCom judgements against RJII as precedent. - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 15:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::I should point out that in any case, RJII also appears to be using a series of throwaway accounts to avoid detection. Accounts like [[User:Antitrust]] and [[User:C-Liberal]] which were registered since he vanished, made a couple of edits (only two in Antitrust's case) to keep his preferred versions in place, and then promptly disappeared seem like classic socks to me. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] 17:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I tend to agree with the assumption, but nothing can be proven. If his words are any indication, RJII would thrive on this kind of speculation. I'd rather not give him that satisfaction. He can play with this until he's 80 years old, for all I care. I might suggest some professional help, though. --[[User:AaronS|AaronS]] 01:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
::::I would add to the above: {{User|CapitalistAnarchist}}, who, somewhat comically, was blindly reverted by {{User|Lingeron}} in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarcho-capitalism&diff=65019101&oldid=65013508 this] edit, where Lingeron reverted three days of edits by ten different people to revert to a version by Vision Thing. Even if we don't assume that {{User|Antitrust}}, {{User|C-Liberal}}, and {{User|CapitalistAnarchist}} are RJII, it can probably be taken as a given based on usernames and contributions that those three are all one user... and I cannot think of any compelling reason why a user would run through three accounts in such a short time unless they were trying to avoid detection. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] 17:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Also {{User|TheIndividualist}}. <font color="Black">'''The'''</font> [[User:The Ungovernable Force|<font color="green">'''Ungovernable'''</font>]] [[User talk:The Ungovernable Force|<font color="black">'''Force'''</font>]] 22:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== Can a user deny an unblock? ==
 
Can an normal user deny an unblock if it's [[User talk:Bondigan|an obvious no]]?--[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·[[User:Ikiroid/Desk|desk]]·[[User talk:Ikiroid/Help Me Improve|Advise me]]) 14:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:I think it's a bad idea, except in the case of someone not giving IP address or autoblock information, who isn't blocked by name. Then, you could leave {{tl|autoblock}} there and remove the request. I think otherwise, it's important that at least someone who can unblock takes a look. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<font color="orange">'''juice'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 14:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
::How about in cases where someone puts an unblock template on a user/IP that isn't blocked at all?--[[User:AOL account|AOL account (205.188.116.200)]] 14:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
:::If it's a user or IP and they aren't blocked (or haven't been blocked in a long time), leave the {{tl|autoblock}} message, if they didn't leave the block message. I guess it's also okay in cases where the block shows up but has already been undone or has expired. If you guys want to help, actually, one thing that would be very helpful is to go through the [[:Category:Reviewed requests for unblock|Reviewed requests for unblock]], and remove tags that are old or for which the block has expired. The {{tl|unblock reviewed}} template says that the request continues to be visible, but that really isn't true if most of the requests are out of date. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<font color="orange">'''juice'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 14:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 
: I can't see why not, generally non-admins can do anything which don't require the admin buttons close <s>[[WP:RFA|RFAs]]<s> [[WP:AFD|AFDs]] which are keeps, detag speedies which aren't really speedies etc. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::Corrected RFA --> AFD, as I'm sure that's what Pgk meant, and I *really* don't want to have to deal with the effects of what a misreading of the statment could do at RfA. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Essjay'''</font>]] [[User talk:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">(<small>Talk</small>)</font>]]</span> 00:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Haha, better than that, has an anon ever tried to close an RfA? I'm sure it would be [[User:69.145.123.171]] if ir was anyone...... [[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·[[User:Ikiroid/Desk|desk]]·[[User talk:Ikiroid/Help Me Improve|Advise me]]) 03:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
It's no big deal......I won't make any block decisions unless I become an admin, it's not in my power to unblock or protect a talkpage from attacks if the user goes bad. [[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·[[User:Ikiroid/Desk|desk]]·[[User talk:Ikiroid/Help Me Improve|Advise me]]) 16:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:As a non-admin, I posted a couple denials:
:# Case 1: Vandal continued to vandalize articles, after test4, I requested an admin to block, and I posted the blockmessage. When the user requested an unblock, I contacted the admin who performed the block and decided to deny the unblock, so I responded to the unblock request.
:# Case 2: User requests unblock multiple time while I and admins are on rcpatrol. I report the unblock request reason, they deny it, and I post the unblock deny on that user's talkpage on behalf of the admins. This case was brought up in my RfA.
:I'd say, the best course of action would be to play it safe and only do so if you have an admin backing you up and willing to vouch for the unblock deny on your behalf. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu ([[User:Kylu|u]]|[[User talk:Kylu|t]]) </font></i></b> 21:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== Hunter91 ==
 
Hi, I have a problem which encompasses a question on policy. As you'll see here, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Martinp23#stop], {{user|Hunter91}} feels that I'm incorrect in some of my advice to him and my actions in an AfD (all of my correspondance has been deleted from his talk page, but with history: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hunter91&oldid=64885919]). He's removed votes from an AfD, claiming that they were by sockpuppets and he left no comment on the AfD discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FBattle_Field_2&diff=64900285&oldid=64886147]. He also changed my nomination, leaving no comment. The users he has labelled as sockpuppets have no warnings for sockpuppetry on their talk pages. From what I can see, the user has a history of removing comments which conflict with his beliefs on the article talk page [[Talk:Battle_Field_2]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABattle_Field_2&diff=64899863&oldid=64885993 like here]. I feel that this user is distrupting wikipedia (to an extent), and am trying to get in contact with an admin to see if they can/will do anything about it. The response I'm hoping for is a kind word to Hunter91 and a revert of his edits to the afd page ([[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_Field_2]]). Thanks [[User:Martinp23|<font color="green"><strong>Martinp23</strong></font>]] 20:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
*Do not alter other people's comments. If he thinks they belong to sockpuppets, he should add a note to the discussion for the closing admin, but removing AFD comments or nominations without leaving comments is not acceptable. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I am with Martin. I voted for the 'Delete' of the article, and then he comments saying that the vote was done by a sock puppet! I am most certainly not a sock puppet! I also commented against the article in the discussion page, but he deleted my comment. He's then accusing everyone of being vandals. If you compare the article of Battle Field 2 to Battlefield 2: Modern Combat, there's a huge difference. You gotta help. [[User:Seriphyn|Seriphyn]] 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
I re-added a delete vote that he had removed and then he accused me of being a "sockpuppet and a vandal" - someone might want to have a polite word. --[[User:Charlesknight|Charlesknight]] 21:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== PoV Edit War ==
 
{{vandal|ED209}} and {{vandal|JohnnyCanuck}} have been continuously adding [[WP:NPOV|PoV]] comments to both [[Michael Di Biase]] and [[Vaughan municipal election, 2006]]. Myself and a number of other editors have attempted to reason with them, to no avail. Discussions on both article talk pages have shown that the ''only'' people who believe the information should be included are the two users mentioned above. Every other objective editor believes that they have no place in the articles. Could someone step in and make a definitive ruling please? These people have demonstrated they have no interest in abiding by community consensus. Thanks - [[User:Pm shef|pm_shef]] 22:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Di Biase had three consecutive traffic tickets 'misplaced' by the police, and this was suspicious enough for the Toronto Star and the local newspaper to report. How does a ticket just vanish? This would be a lucky coincidence for most people, but when it involves the allegedly corrupt Mayor of the allegedly most corrupt council in Canada, luck may not be involved. [[User:Energyblue|Energyblue]] 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::Also where is this so called "community consensus"? If you go to the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Di_Biase|article talk page]], you'll see that only one person agrees with Pm_shef, and that's JamesTeterenko. Bearcat says that he has "no strong opinion about whether the traffic incidents belong in the article" and CJCurrie writes "I don't have any strong opinions about Michael Di Biase, and I'm willing to grant that the information could perhaps be presented in a neutral and encyclopedic manner." The question is, is pm_shef, the son on Vaughan Councillor Alan Shefman, capable of writing objectively about City Hall? [[User:Energyblue|Energyblue]] 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
*''' ''PLEASE NOTE'', {{vandal|Energyblue}} is most likely a [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppet]] of [[User:VaughanWatch]]. - [[User:Pm shef|pm_shef]] 20:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)'''
 
== Citing own material in which financial interest exists==
On the [[Attachment Therapy]] page user JeanMercer continues to add as a reference a book she wrote with two others, Sarner and his spouse, Rosa. Mercer receives royalties for this and is a leader of the advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy, which financially benefits from the book sales. She has been warned once about this and I put a note on her talk page as a second warning. I'd appreciate your advice and interventionn here. [[User:RalphLender|RalphLender]] 23:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:It's bad form, but is it against policy? How is the book regarded by others? Would it ever be cited by someone not involved with it? [[User:Morven|Matthew Brown (Morven)]] ([[User talk:Morven|T]]:[[Special:Contributions/Morven|C]]) 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::If it's self-published (or otherwise small circulation), it's not considered a reliable source. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 00:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
It's not self-published, but was brought out by Praeger, an imprint of Greenwood. This is an academic press that provides initial expert review, developmental review, and professional editing services. Jacket comments were provided by Elizabeth Loftus and Frederick Crews, and there is a series forward by Hiram Fitzgerald of the World Association for Infant Mental Health (the series was Child Psychology and Mental Health). This book was cited by the APSAC task force in 2006 with respect to the use of Attachment Therapy. However, as is the case for many serious books, the royalties have been very small-- I would suppose each author has realized no more than $200 from the book in the three years it has been out, rather less than it took to prepare the ms.. This is in fact the only single publication that gives a thorough analysis of the topic, and that is why I cite it.
 
I could, of course, avoid being the subject of such complaints if I did not reveal my identity, but I consider it important for people to know who is speaking about a subject so relevant to the well-being of children and families.
 
Incidentally, I applaud the distinction made by InShanee between self-published and other material, but I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that today there are a number of what one might call "printer-ready publishers" who provide none of the services of a company like Praeger, but permit authors to avoid having their work tagged "self-published." Such publishers add complexity to the existing problem of identifying authoritative information without careful reading and analysis.[[User:Jean Mercer|Jean Mercer]] 13:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:This belongs on the article discussion page, not ANI. [[User:Phr|Phr]] ([[User talk:Phr|talk]]) 01:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
==[[User:Zereshk]] Internal Spamming==
 
The user has been internally spamming to try and get a favorable outcome on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misconceptions about Iran|this afd]]. ''Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view.'' ([[Wikipedia:Spam]]) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amirman&diff=prev&oldid=64955384] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sdoroudi&diff=prev&oldid=64954816] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SZadeh&diff=prev&oldid=64954633] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kiumars&diff=prev&oldid=64954011] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shervink&diff=prev&oldid=64953515] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aytakin&diff=prev&oldid=64953283] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eagle_The_Great&diff=prev&oldid=64953081] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MehranVB&diff=prev&oldid=64952977] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spahbod&diff=prev&oldid=64952773] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ShapurAriani&diff=prev&oldid=64951713] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ali_doostzadeh&diff=prev&oldid=64951498] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aminz&diff=prev&oldid=64951444] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ManiF&diff=prev&oldid=64951387] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sa.vakilian&diff=prev&oldid=64951253] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Striver&diff=prev&oldid=64951116][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tajik&diff=prev&oldid=64950987] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pantherarosa&diff=prev&oldid=64950887] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gol&diff=prev&oldid=64950752] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Khosrow_II&diff=prev&oldid=64950661]--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 01:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:I'm rolling back as many 'notices' as I can, and issuing a stern warning to Zereshk. However, it appears he's also been busy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Striver&diff=prev&oldid=64955187 trolling for meatpuppets], which I think deserves looking into seperately. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 02:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
I honestly think that a temporary block is neccessary here, this kind of action isn't going to stop with a warning on his talk page and will just be brushed off. I also don't think it is fair to the rest of us who want a fair afd process and who do not resort to this action to get keep votes on afds.--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 02:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:As I said, I've removed the messages. He's not currently spamming, and unless he starts again, he's not going to be blocked. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 02:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:: If he starts up again, do what you have to do, with my support. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 03:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Note that he was also doing it externally, on the Persian Wikipedia: [http://fa.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D9%BE%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7:%D9%82%D9%87%D9%88%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%87&diff=prev&oldid=241885]. And I've been told there are precedents of similar behaviour: [http://fa.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D9%BE%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7:%D9%82%D9%87%D9%88%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%87&oldid=159286#.D9.85.D8.AD.D8.A7.DA.A9.D9.85.D9.87_.D8.AF.D8.B3.D8.AA.D9.87_.D8.AC.D9.85.D8.B9.DB.8C_.DA.A9.D8.A7.D8.B1.D8.A8.D8.B1.D8.A7.D9.86_.D8.A7.DB.8C.D8.B1.D8.A7.D9.86.DB.8C_.D9.88.DB.8C.DA.A9.DB.8C_.D9.BE.D8.AF.DB.8C.D8.A7.DB.8C_.D8.A7.D9.86.DA.AF.D9.84.DB.8C.D8.B3.DB.8C2], [http://fa.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D9%BE%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7:%D9%82%D9%87%D9%88%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%87&oldid=159286#.D9.85.D8.AD.D8.A7.DA.A9.D9.85.D9.87_.D8.AF.D8.B3.D8.AA.D9.87_.D8.AC.D9.85.D8.B9.DB.8C_.DA.A9.D8.A7.D8.B1.D8.A8.D8.B1.D8.A7.D9.86_.D8.A7.DB.8C.D8.B1.D8.A7.D9.86.DB.8C_.D9.88.DB.8C.DA.A9.DB.8C_.D9.BE.D8.AF.DB.8C.D8.A7.DB.8C_.D8.A7.D9.86.DA.AF.D9.84.DB.8C.D8.B3.DB.8C]. -- [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 05:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Thank you for informing us on that I am going to tell InShanee in his talk page.--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 06:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
: Comment: Those posts all belong to the period before Zereshk was asked to stop spamming other pages. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 06:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Another question, and an important one: Zereshk has now vowed to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASa.vakilian&diff=64968767&oldid=64968053 continue spamming off-site], which of course he can't be caught in the act as easily. Any suggested course of action? --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 16:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:I'm pretty certain he's been doing just that anyway, in similar earlier cases too. And his behaviour is being rewarded: there are in fact around a dozen new keep votes on that AfD by now, almost all from Iranian users. It's exactly this sort of behaviour that has made pages like [[Misconceptions about the Shi'a]] (even worse piece of POV writing) survive up to three successive AfD's, apparently. Probably nothing much than an Arbcom ban would be able to stop him. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 17:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::I've issued a 48 hour block for the moment, and if I ever see that his 'groupies' show up mysteriouly in any more AfDs, I'll be more than happy to block again for longer. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 18:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
''' Aminz Request ''':
 
'''Aleged Injustice''': Can other admins please have a look into this: ** Is 48 Hours block appropriate for such violation of policies? ** I seriously doubt! Zereshk has remained civil and hasn't done any vandalism. He has spammed some pages and this was '''his first time.''' Later, he has said to a '''particular user''' that he will inform him next time via email (please note his tone in that comment which seems not to be serious though it was very improper). I have seen all the relevant evidences & I personally find this block as it stands to be injustice (48 hours! for doing something once!). --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 01:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
: Another evidence: One reason that I like another admin to look into this is that when InShaneee '''first''' warned Zereshk of not spamming, InShaneee warned Zereshk of getting blocked. I was completely surprised when I saw that. I've been around in wikipedia for awhile and have got a sense of the warnings. Nobody gives a <nowiki>{{test4}}</nowiki> to a person who has done vandalism for his first time. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 01:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
I am requesting again. Can any other admin for the sake of God have a look into this case. Thanks --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 07:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
: Another evidence : User InShaneee believes: "As I said, policy is policy and if you break it, it's broken. Sure, he didn't vandalize, but spamming is a policy too, and such flagrant disregard cannot go unnoticed... Showing such disregard for policy is the mark of a troll, and users who show no willingness to follow policy are often blocked indefinatly."
 
: I personally think InShaneee is not taking the required steps one by one in dealing with user Zereshk. Blocking a user (particularly for 48 hours) should be only taken as the last resort. InShaneee, on the other hand, is trying to identify Zereshk's comment as a mark of being a troll. This is a very quick judgment based on a single comment and I believe InShaneee is over-generalizing the situation. Furthermore, this block doesn't serve in a constructive manner. I am still confused why InShaneee didn't warn Zereshk of not showing disregard for the policy. Much worst things happen in wikipedia all the times, but the admins are much more tolerant (and they are supposed to be). Just put yourself in Zereshk's shoes: He is going to be accused of having the mark of a troll and getting banned for 48 hours in his first violation of a policy!!!!! (well! two policies) --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 07:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== Tribalwar AFD Page ==
 
Has gotten lots of hit with personal attacks -- [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tribalwar]] -- and has nothing to do with the subject matter. --[[Image:FBISeal.png|15px]] [[User:Bugs5382|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Bugs5382|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bugs5382|contrib]])</sup> 04:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
I would recommend the personal attacks be removed, but would rather have clearnce to proceed. --[[User:Pilotguy|<font color="#000000">'''Pilotguy'''</font>]]<sup> '''('''[[User_talk:Pilotguy|<font color="#0000FF"><b>''roger that''</b></font>]]''')'''</sup> 04:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:It's pretty grotesque. There has been a ''huge'' influx of red accounts and IP's, all showing up in an instant and uttering nonsense. I'm not sure that anyone will be able to close the thing and feel secure about the decision, so I'd guess that DRV will be necessary. At any rate, actual personal attacks can be stricken through (the old <nowiki> <s> </s> </nowiki> tags), as that leaves them where they are but shows that the remarks are clutter and insults. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 10:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
::Very nasty business, though inevitable - after all, it was nominated by a Wikipedia user with some sort of previous personal dispute with some (possibly many) of the forum members (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tribalwar&oldid=32713833#.5EBuGs.5E_gets_fired here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Consumed_Crustacean#Re:_Tribalwar here]). Nothing good was ever going to come of this - in fact, I suspect the only reason the AfD hasn't been closed as bad-faith is either that the editor is sufficiently well-established to get away with it, that the admins reckon a reasonably proper AfD process can still be salvaged from this mess (and I hope it's this one), or that no-one has noticed yet. - [[User:Makomk|makomk]] 20:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:If this were to be reviewed once more. All you need to do is check the history to see what is going on. --[[User:Bugs5382|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Bugs5382|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bugs5382|contrib]])</sup> 00:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== Administrators pushing their own POV ==
 
This is a serious problem. Take a look [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_E._Jones&action=history here] and you'll see that MONGO and tom harrison are pushing their own POV's and also not being civil (using terms "conspiracy theorist") How long is it going to take for wikipedia to ditch them already? They (and others) are nothing but troublemakers. [[User:CB Brooklyn|CB Brooklyn]] 04:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:I don't see where MONGO or tom harrison called you that. Mind providing a diff to an actual edit instead of the whole freakin' history page? Additionally, I don't see why you need to take an editorial dispute to ANI. Shouldn't you handle it with an RfC or something? [[User:Kasreyn|Kasreyn]] 08:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Looks more like a case of administrators pushing [[WP:V|policy]] to me. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 14:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::Well, if they are pushing ''policy'' at the expense of unsourced crap, something should be done! Barnstars? [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 17:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[[Image:Stern barnstar.png|frame|right|This is a STERN barnstar. You have been awarded this as a warning that you are doing something right. Please continue. If you do, you may find yourself being severely complimented without further warnings.]]
:::STERN barnstars. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 17:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::::''<nowiki>*dies laughing*</nowiki>'' ^_^ [[User:Kasreyn|Kasreyn]] 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::That's too good an opportunity to miss! <heads for Photoshop> Here you go... :-) -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 20:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::You're my new hero, ChrisO. :) --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 20:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::: LOL! Great barnstar, I agree. :) --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 21:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Anyone going to award it? --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">LV</font>]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::done. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 15:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
{{clear}}
 
== [[User:Bonnieisrael]] ==
 
I'd appreciate another administrator stepping in here. Ever since I took a hard line against [[User:Israelbeach]], I have been targetted by his sockpuppets and friends both on and off the wiki. Israelbeach crossed the lines and is effectively under community ban, but his puppets are still allowed to edit. [[user:Bonnieisrael]] is now trying to engage me in another personal edit war. As in: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_19&diff=prev&oldid=64907440] Which I foolishly corrected: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_19&diff=64924190&oldid=64923661] And was of course reverted: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_19&diff=next&oldid=64943795]. I know I have a part in this too, but I'd like to point out Bonnieisrael's history. She was blocked by Slimvirgin as a suspected sockpuppet of Israelbeach, for this sort of behavior and worse. She was unblocked by Jredmond. Jredmond promised Slimvirgin to keep an eye out [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jredmond&diff=51696658&oldid=51693236], Slimvirgin said she would reblock Bonnieisrael for continuing this kind of behavior [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jredmond&diff=51698939&oldid=51696658]. Bonnieisrael has since contributed almost '''nothing''' but more Israelbeach-type edits. Jredmond has ignored my protests about Bonnieisrael's continued disruptive editing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jredmond&diff=56787500&oldid=53749109]. I'd also like to point out that as an administrator, I could easily block any one of [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Israelbeach|Israelbeach's sockpuppets]] myself, and I believe I would by fully justified in doing so - but I excercise restraint because I am personally involved. I count on other administrators to use clearer judgment. But mostly I think other administrators [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Israelbeach|can't be bothered to check]] what these sock/meatpuppets are up to. --[[User:Woggly|woggly]] 05:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
*I don't know about the rest of your dispute, but generally it's considered more polite to dispute someone's claim by replying to it saying "That's wrong" than to edit their claim to what you think is correct. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 13:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
**And this my impropriety was the only aspect anyone thought worth responding to. Fine. I'm sure Israelbeach will be happy to continue populating Wikipedia with his sockpuppets, including the new baby: [[User:Jerusalemrose]], and make many useful contributions to <strike>his self-promotion campaign</strike> wikipedia. I will no longer stand in his way. Heaven forbid, I might be tempted to be impolite again. --[[User:Woggly|woggly]] 19:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:::*Woggly, I've left a note for Jredmond, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jredmond&diff=prev&oldid=65211708] as he should deal with it in the first instance as the unblocking admin. Please keep me posted, so I know that it's being looked into. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 14:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== Myrtone86 blocked for a week for (repeated) disruption ==
 
I have blocked {{userlinks|Myrtone86}} for a week for adding an angry emoticon to the end of [[Template:UsernameBlocked]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUsernameBlocked&diff=65022764&oldid=63918393]. He also added an 'autosig' which also needed reverting, as sometimes extra commentary can be inserted after templates - I could almost swear that he's been reverted and warned about adding autosigs before, but perhaps that was someone else.
 
If it needs to be said, and I really hope it doesn't, this is a ''completely'' inappropriate edit to a high-visibility template which regards a very sensitive issue - blocking users indefinitely who may not have been expecting it. It turns a rational and clear explanation into a statement that we don't take permanent blocking of users who may be editing in good faith seriously. The edit stood for several hours until I used the template on a user's talk page, had to edit my own edit to remove Myrtone's crap, and then revert him. For all we know some editors used it without noticing (the template is designed to be substed so whatlinkshere won't be any use in checking). Silly edits to templatespace are many times more damaging than silly edits to article, user or projectspace.
 
My block of a week takes into account Myrtone's 5 previous blocks, albeit two were later undone. Given Myrtone86's history of silly edits which have got him blocked several times in the past, I don't feel any more such edits from this user should be tolerated. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 16:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Agreed, I've been involved with him before because he had an incredibly stupid signature that used <nowiki>{{PAGENAME}}</nowiki> in it. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 16:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
: Yes, I briefly blocked Myrtone in June for persisting in that after multiple warnings. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Regarding the autosigs, the editor I was thinking of who had been doing it before was actually [[User:Flameviper12]], not Myrtone. Flameviper had a similar history of mixing good edits with phenomenally stupid ones (more stupid than Myrtone, it has to be said), including disruptive signatures, until he was eventually indefinitely blocked (for the third time, after being unblocked twice after promising to be good). --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 16:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Myrtone86 has a history of constant disruption which he attempts to do in a way that he can pass off as an innocent action. Check a classic example here [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jesus on Wheels|Requests for adminship/Jesus on Wheels]]. Suspect JoW is a sockpuppet of Myrtone86. [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 18:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
::I am truly baffled as to why this user has not been blocked indefinitely. He is an incredible nuisance who has contributed virutally nothing to Wikipedia.--[[User:Sean Black|SB]] | [[User talk:Sean Black|T]] 21:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I would say the next time this nonsense happens it's permanent. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 02:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:[[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#How_it.27s_done_on_OrthodoxWiki]] might be of interest as well. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Essjay'''</font>]] [[User talk:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">(<small>Talk</small>)</font>]]</span> 07:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== 2007-07-21 SPUI ==
 
{{Vandal|SPUI}} has gone off the deep end. S/he's been edit warring on Freeway-related topics all month. There was the [[WP:POINT]] move of {{la|Freeway}} to {{la|Highway with full control of access and no cross traffic}}. That took weeks to fix (that was prior to my involvement).
 
But today, s/he's gone hog-wild [[WP:POINT]] creating:
*{{lc|Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic}},
*{{lc|Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in Canada}}, and
*{{lc|Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in the United States}}.
 
And making hundreds of re-categorizations. Categories take even longer to fix than mere moves.
 
After losing the renaming of {{lc|Freeways}} to {{lc|Limited-access roads}}, and then losing the July 1 CfD to rename it back, a Deletion review, a re-listing for more comments, and losing the CfD relisting, and on the way to losing another Deletion review. I've posted two notices at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement]], should I make it 3, 4, 5?
 
Please stop this quickly, it's gotten ugly!
:--[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 19:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:This is too complex for me to feel comfortable doing anything about, since I have no previous knowledge of this issue. However, a quick glance at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:SPUI block log] shows quite a colorful history. If there really was ill behavior here, I would suggest a somewhat long block - probably at least a week- as there sure seems to be a history of other disruptive behavior. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 19:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
::See the arbitration case from a couple weeks ago ([[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways]]). I recommend an immediate block to stop further damage if the editing is still in progress; decide afterwards how long to make it. [[User:Phr|Phr]] ([[User talk:Phr|talk]]) 20:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:::There is no "ill behavior" here. Most people in the deletion discussion begun by William do not wish to see these categories deleted. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]]) 20:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Still you can't deny you've made disruptive edits to some of these pages in the last 4 days all in violation of your probation. [[User:JohnnyBGood|<font color="Green">'''JohnnyBGood'''</font>]] [[User talk:JohnnyBGood|<font color="Red">'''t'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/JohnnyBGood|<font color="Red">'''c'''</font>]] <b>VIVA!</b> 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Actually I do deny that. Not that you'll change your mind based on said denial. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]]) 20:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
*Repeatedly deleted the speedy deletion tags on the 4 categories, followed by {hangon}, gaming the 3RR.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic&diff=65092468&oldid=65088300
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic&diff=65096312&oldid=65094565
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic&diff=65106914&oldid=65097292
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic&diff=65109444&oldid=65108412
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic_by_country&diff=65092502&oldid=65088398
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic_by_country&diff=65096307&oldid=65094639
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic_by_country&diff=65106904&oldid=65097342
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic_by_country&diff=65109433&oldid=65108477
*''etc.''
*:--[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 20:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Vandal SPUI edit warring continues at {{la|limited-access road}}.
:--[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::Simple removal of uncited material that has been uncited since I tagged it about a week ago. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]]) 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Vandal SPUI edit warring continues at [[:Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in Canada]], where none of the subcategories or articles applies. According to their own main articles, these are [[expressway]]s and [[controlled access road]]s, and therefore do not have "no cross traffic". For example, {{la|Ring Road (Regina)}} has signals at railroad crossings.
:--[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
William has added improper speedy deletion templates to the categories several times, and has tried to empty [[:Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in Canada]]. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]]) 22:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not going to comment on whether WAS is right or wrong as I think it could go both ways. However what is a fact despite your denial is that you've been edit warring with him. That is disruption. Disruption is an immediate block per yours and my probations. [[User:JohnnyBGood|<font color="Green">'''JohnnyBGood'''</font>]] [[User talk:JohnnyBGood|<font color="Red">'''t'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/JohnnyBGood|<font color="Red">'''c'''</font>]] <b>VIVA!</b> 22:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
I've blocked William Allen Simpson for personal attacks for repeatedly referring to SPUI as "Vandal SPUI". That's unacceptable. More explanation on William's talk page. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 22:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:Ill-advised words, sure, but a blockworthy personal attack? A warning first sure wouldn't have hurt. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 23:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
: That was inexcusable language. A three-hour cooler sounds sensible here. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 23:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
::Wait. You guys block WAS for being mildly uncivil yet don't block SPUI for two days worth of shirking his ArbCom imposed probation which specifically forbids edit warring on highway articles and incivility, both of which he was proven to have done??? How the hell does that work? [[User:JohnnyBGood|<font color="Green">'''JohnnyBGood'''</font>]] [[User talk:JohnnyBGood|<font color="Red">'''t'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/JohnnyBGood|<font color="Red">'''c'''</font>]] <b>VIVA!</b> 23:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::(ec) He's been blocked so many times he's got more than one page of block log. Is referring to him as "vandal" THAT unreasonable? I'm all for being very conservative with the use of that word, but let's be reasonable. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 23:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::I endorse the block of William Allen Simpson. He is clearly out of control on this issue (unlike SPUI) and needs a breather. If he doesn't tone down the unwarranted rhetoric, he will find himself getting longer blocks. SPUI has a checkered history on Wikipedia but that doesn't mean he's fair game. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 23:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:::None of SPUI's blocks are for vandalism, so yes, referring to him as a vandal is ''entirely'' unreasonable. SPUI may have some problems dealing with content disputes, but he does a lot of good work and he's certainly no vandal, and I know he doesn't appreciate being called one. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 02:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
He's continued - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vegaswikian&diff=prev&oldid=65411773 "I was not able to assist you, as SPUI had his chat friends block my account for reporting his repeated vandalism at WP:ANI, the usual place for reporting vandalism."] --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]]) 19:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== [[User:Energyblue]] blocked as sockpuppet ==
 
I just put an indefinite block on {{userlinks|Energyblue}} for being a [[WP:SOCK|SOCK]] of {{userlinks|VaughanWatch}}. My reasoning for this is:
* His first edit was to "out" [[User:pm_shef|pm_shef]], the apparent archnemesis of VaughanWatch [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pm_shef&diff=prev&oldid=64895509]
* His second edit was to report pm_shef here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=65067507]
 
This seems like a pretty clearcut case for sockpuppetry of a blocked user, but I did want to post it here to make sure that no one sees any issue with this. -- [[User:JamesTeterenko|JamesTeterenko]] 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
*I'm cool with it. Even if he's ''not'' VaughanWatch, he's pretty obviously a sockpuppet. [[User:JDoorjam|JDoorj]][[User:JDoorjam/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User:JDoorjam|m]] [[User Talk:JDoorjam|Talk]] 19:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
*Would surprise me if it wasn't a VaughanWatch sock. Good block. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 11:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== Looking for some more eyes/peacemakers at [[William H. Kennedy]] ==
Got a page of a living person, with two editors with very strong views holding an edit war over the page. One pro-Kennedy, one anti-Kennedy. The page was semi-protected a few days back, at the request of the pro side warrior ([[User:617USA]]). On the anti side, there had been several IPs followed by a user account, ([[User:Suture]]). I'm pretty sure this is all one person. The anti warrior has been pushing to have some serious derogatory claims included in the article. I've been trying to reason with him on the talk page about the need for [[WP:RS]]. His account appears to have just passed the age for getting around the semi-protection, and the fight is on again. And I'm about done for much of the weekend, with little time to deal with things. It would be great if another admin could keep an eye on this page, as I can see things getting out of hand again there very easily. - [[User:TexasAndroid|TexasAndroid]] 21:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== [[User:Kelly Martin/B]] ==
 
This list [[User:Kelly Martin/B]] is of a concern to me. It appears to be a list of a group of users who have little in common other than that, as far as I can tell, all of us found ourselves in opposition to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sean Black 2]] for one reason or another. That the administrator largely responsible for the creation of this page stated that its purpose was "It is used by myself and certain others to benefit our decision-making processes" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACyde&diff=64900571&oldid=64898548], so I can only conclude that its sole purpose is to harass and/or intimidate those with whom this administrator disagreed about the RFA in question. [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 21:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:By the way, I have now listed this page at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion]]. Please feel free to help build a consensus there as appropriate. [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 21:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Hahaha, nice guess, but it actually has nothing to do with Sean Black's RFA. That's an interesting correlation you pointed out, though ... [[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:LOL nevermind, it got a lot bigger since the last time I looked at it :-P Check the page's history though, it's been around since before Sean Black's RFA. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 22:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
And it just got a lot smaller since I last looked, Cyde just deleted it. Meh. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<font color="green">"?!"</font>]] 22:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Edit conflict: I was also going to post that the page has now been deleted by Cyde. I would still like to know what the intentions were. Refusing to say what it is for and deleting it as soon as anyone outside of your clique finds out about it hampers my ability to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. -[[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 22:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:I don't like the fact that people are poking around in my userspace. The purpose of that page is to benefit my ability to make decisions in the best interest of Wikipedia. Just a way of keeping track of people that's more reliable than my memory -- there's a lot of Wikipedians these days and I find that I can no longer manage everything in my head. All it takes to get on there is doing anything that makes you stand out to me -- good or bad, it doesn't matter; being included there doesn't mean I think you're a bad person or anything; it's just a list. I deliberately created it in my user space and at an out of the way ___location so that it wouldn't be disruptive, but of course someone had to go and make trouble about it. Nice show, people. I suppose I'll move it to my own wiki (which is closed, and I don't give out passwords to many people) where I don't have to worry about people messing with it. Even better, I can put it in a special locked namespace where none of you can see it, either. You should have stopped while you were ahead..... [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 22:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
::Kelly why not just recreate it? There was no basis for the deletion of it and it can be easily restored through proper channels. I'm confused as to why it was deleted in the first place. Having a list of users isn't against any rule. [[User:JohnnyBGood|<font color="Green">'''JohnnyBGood'''</font>]] [[User talk:JohnnyBGood|<font color="Red">'''t'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/JohnnyBGood|<font color="Red">'''c'''</font>]] <b>VIVA!</b> 22:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Recreating it will just disrupt Wikipedia further. If I maintain this list off-wiki, I won't have to deal with the howling -- or at least can ignore it more readily. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 22:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::That's not the explanation you gave for it on IRC. I don't think this after the fact misrepresentation of what the list was for is really helpful. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 22:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
::Good grief. I can't believe we're even having this conversation. You created a list of names that apparantly was based on people you and others had disagreed with. You refused to say what it was for - simply giving a reasonable explanation would have sufficed. When you get caught, somehow it's our fault for "poking around in your user space", whatever that means. Still, rather than provide an explanation, Cyde removes the list. Calling it a list of people that stand out good, bad, or indifferent sounds dubious considering that (1) there were multiple substantial contributors to the list and (2) you added a large block of names from Sean's RFA. Now, you play the "drama queen" card of taking your football and going to your own secret wiki. Honestly, this behavior disturbs me. If everything you were doing was above board, then you would not at all be upset at discussing your actions. [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 22:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::No cookies for '''you''' this year at Christmas. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 23:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
::::It's just as well ... I need to cut down anyway ... [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 23:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I think we're all entitled to know what this is all about. I see other admins adding names to this secret list in user space, then deleting the list (including [[User:Cyde]] with the summary "Kill everything"?), and then see my name on it. What is going on? -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|<b>Samir</b>]] <small>[[User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)|<font color="black">धर्म</font>]]</small> 08:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Yes, so secret that she put it in her userspace. [[User:Henry Flower|Henry]][[User talk:Henry Flower|<sup>Flower</sup>]] 08:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
# 23:11, 21 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) (+1)
# 18:09, 21 July 2006 . . Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) (Kill MFD)
# 18:09, 21 July 2006 . . Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) (rm. another self-add)
# 18:08, 21 July 2006 . . Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) (Nope, you need to earn it.)
# 18:06, 21 July 2006 . . W.marsh (Talk | contribs | block) (I want in!)
# 17:51, 21 July 2006 . . BigDT (Talk | contribs | block) (+mfd1)
# 17:45, 21 July 2006 . . The wub (Talk | contribs | block) (seems like a nice bunch, I want in)
# 13:54, 21 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (add many)
# 15:04, 20 July 2006 . . SPUI (Talk | contribs | block) (apparently I can help by expanding it?)
# 14:20, 20 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (+2)
# 12:11, 20 July 2006 . . Gurch (Talk | contribs | block) (oh, that. So what? I'm entitled to my opinion, no?)
# 10:17, 20 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (why)
# 08:16, 20 July 2006 . . Gurch (Talk | contribs | block) (ehh... what did I do?)
# 18:39, 17 July 2006 . . Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) (Add one)
# 12:45, 14 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (+)
# 22:57, 12 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) (1)
# 13:25, 12 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) (-rfaf, +humor)
# 11:49, 12 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (+)
# 09:58, 6 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (+)
# 09:57, 6 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (add)
# 10:38, 5 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) (+1)
# 12:41, 3 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (add)
# 11:30, 3 July 2006 . . Sean Black (Talk | contribs | block) (yeah...)
# 11:17, 3 July 2006 . . Phil Boswell (Talk | contribs | block) ({{userlinks}}…or should we use {{vandal}}?)
# 11:12, 3 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block)
# 02:03, 3 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block)
 
That's very <s>intimidating</s> intimate, and yet ever so participatory! I'm honoured to grace the list. I think! *Kisses* [[User:El C|El_C]] 09:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
I am told I was listed on here, don't I have a right to know what it is? [[User:Computerjoe|Computerjoe]][[User talk:Computerjoe|<span style="color:red">'s talk</span>]] 12:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Damn, that's creepy. I appeared on 6 of July, apparently after my vote on [[User:Mboverload]]'s RfA. [[User:Gurch]] who voted "per me" was added shortly thereafter. I definitely don't like the smell of it. [[User:Grue|<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp;Grue&nbsp;'''</font>]] 13:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Hi everyone! Friendly [[WP:AGF|Assume Good Faith]] reminder! '''Contributors''' to this mysterious subpage should not assume objectors are "making trouble" and that hiding it in some other place somehow hampers the objectors. They should also realize that people like to see who is linking to their user pages, that such curiosity is perfectly normal, and that an unannotated and apparently random list would obviously stand out as a curiosity. '''Objectors''' should accept the contributors' explanations at face value unless evidence to the contrary is presented. The idea that this list is just a list of "people of interest" is at least plausible. =) [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] 13:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
:The problem is that no explanation has been given. If Kelly, Cyde, and others would give an explanation, I would be willing to accept it. [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 15:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
::I find it hard to [[WP:AGF]] when one administrator suggests using a <nowiki>{{vandal}}</nowiki> template for the people on the list AND another uses the words "kill everything" in the summary to delete the list. -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|<b>Samir</b>]] <small>[[User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)|<font color="black">धर्म</font>]]</small> 04:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:::If this list really is no big deal, why can't it just be explained? Clearly, we're all itching to know. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' <small>(joturner)</small> 08:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
* Probably a [[Carrot and stick|''"Christmas gift"'']] that we can expect after this RfA. ;) - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 16:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
* Man, not even 3000 edits and I'm blacklisted. Argh. --<font color="3300FF">[[User:Aguerriero|Aguerriero]] ([[User_talk:Aguerriero|talk]])</font> 21:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
: Kelly Martin, I see you are proposing to move this list to your own server. If this is based in the UK, it may be subject to the Data Protection Act; and if in the EU, various directives limiting the use of personal information. Personally, I will [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. If the reason I am on the list is because someone disapproves (or approves for that matter) of something I said, they are welcome to comment on my talk page. Everyone is open to reason, if you catch the right moment. [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] 09:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::Oh for fuck's sakes. Really. This is way past the threshold of ridiculous and is now firmly in the territory of the absurd. You're quoting British laws at her?! Ahahahahahaha. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 15:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::: It seems you have misconstrued the purpose of my comment. [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] 22:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
*Personally, I see enough people I respect on the list to take my inclusion as a compliment. I do wonder why I'm a Q1 on [[User:Kelly Martin/Q|this list]] though. What could it all mean? -- [[User:Avenue|Avenue]] 13:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
**No idea. I see that W.marsh is listed under BBQ. I strongly suspect that we've crossed the line into parody. Regarding your inclusion, clearly it's a bad pun ([[Avenue Q]]). [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 14:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
***BBQ? I want in on the LB (Light Brunch) list ''wherever'' that is. --[[User:Wiki_alf|Alf]] <sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Wiki_alf|melmac]]</font></sup> 18:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
*OK, fess up, how many of you have a [[/B]] page? [[User:NoSeptember/B|I have one]]. [[User:NoSeptember/Signature11|<font color = "green">'''NoSeptember'''</font>]] 14:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
** Me too, but at least I was smart enough to make it [[User:Tariqabjotu/B|inaccessible to everyone else]]. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' <small>(joturner)</small> 15:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
*** Funny, I can view what's there ;) [[User:NoSeptember/Signature11|<font color = "green">'''NoSeptember'''</font>]] 15:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, having such a list of users is very poor taste. I can't think of any "decision-making processes" using current mechanisms which would necessitate lists of users by certain criteria. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 15:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Since this all blew up and blew away over the weekend, and I opposed Sean Black's RfA and am curious, could someone tell me if I was/am/will be on this list? -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 15:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:Nevermind, thanks, someone filled me in that I was/am. I'm disappointed in Kelly's choice to take this "off-wiki" and refusal to answer simple questions about the intent of such a list. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 16:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Here is the list before it was deleted. I am on it, as are several other admins who opposed SB's RfA. I am appalled. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 16:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
* {{Userlinks|Micoolio101}}
* {{Userlinks|M. Burmy}}
* {{Userlinks|SirGrant}}
* {{Userlinks|ClemMcGann}}
* {{Userlinks|Jtdirl}}
* {{Userlinks|Juppiter}}
* {{Userlinks|Splash}} <!-- hahahaha -->
* {{userlinks|Xoloz}}
* {{userlinks|DragonWR12LB}}
* {{userlinks|mboverload}}
* {{userlinks|Grue}}
* {{userlinks|Gurch}} &bull; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mboverload&diff=prev&oldid=62349365] <!-- And your point is? -->
* {{userlinks|Splash}} <!-- listed twice! -->
* {{userlinks|Rossami}}
* {{userlinks|Dragon695}}
* {{userlinks|Xaosflux}}
* {{userlinks|Haukurth}}
* {{userlinks|SatyrTN}}
* {{userlinks|Sockenpuppe}}
* {{userlinks|A. B.}}
* {{userlinks|AaronS}}
* {{userlinks|Abcdefghijklm}}
* {{userlinks|Aguerriero}}
* {{userlinks|Avenue}}
* {{userlinks|Bhadani}}
* {{userlinks|BigDT}}
* {{userlinks|Blnguyen}}
* {{userlinks|Bucketsofg}}
* {{userlinks|Computerjoe}}
* {{userlinks|David D.}}
* {{userlinks|Deon555}}
* {{userlinks|Dlyons493}}
* {{userlinks|El C}}
* {{userlinks|Eluchil404}}
* {{userlinks|Erik the Rude}}
* {{userlinks|Goldom}}
* {{userlinks|Grace Note}}
* {{userlinks|Grandmasterka}}
* {{userlinks|Grue}}
* {{userlinks|Guinnog}}
* {{userlinks|Idont Havaname}}
* {{userlinks|JJay}}
* {{userlinks|JJJJust}}
* {{userlinks|Jonathunder}}
* {{userlinks|Kimchi.sg}}
* {{userlinks|Kinneyboy90}}
* {{userlinks|Knowledge Seeker}}
* {{userlinks|Mailer diablo}}
* {{userlinks|Matt Yeager}}
* {{userlinks|MatthewFenton}}
* {{userlinks|Nae'blis}}
* {{userlinks|OwenX}}
* {{userlinks|Paolo Liberatore}}
* {{userlinks|Petros471}}
* {{userlinks|RandyWang}}
* {{userlinks|RFerreira}}
* {{userlinks|Samir (The Scope)}}
* {{userlinks|Samsara}}
* {{userlinks|Shizane}}
* {{userlinks|Silensor}}
* {{userlinks|Simetrical}}
* {{userlinks|Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington}}
* {{userlinks|Stephen B Streater}}
* {{userlinks|Tariqabjotu}}
* {{userlinks|Terence Ong}}
* {{userlinks|Themindset}}
* {{userlinks|Thumbelina}}
* {{userlinks|Tintin}}
* {{userlinks|William Allen Simpson}}
* {{userlinks|WillMak050389}}
* {{userlinks|Zaxem}}
 
{{incomplete-list}}
 
<nowiki><list snipped, it makes ANI much longer and is totally unnecessary, it's already reproduced elsewhere in userspace></nowiki> --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 17:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
: I put the list back (above). It belongs here as it is the entire point of discussion. Also, if it is reproduced somewhere else already, please provide a link. Just cutting it from here, not showing where it is reproduced, and fully knowing that nonadmins can't see deleted text appears to me as something to hide, or either way, not a good idea. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 20:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Looking through the history of this list, I see that most names, including mine, were added after we Sean Black's RFA. Is this an "enemies list" of people to settle scores with? [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 17:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:I don't particularly care what this list was for, but I think it was shockingly clueless of the people involved in making it to put such an unexplained list of editors on-Wiki, delete it when it attracts attention, and then refuse to really talk about its purpose, unless their goal is to create ''drama''. If that was the intent, well-done, otherwise, that was dumb as hell, guys. If this was an "in-joke", or whatever, it was bungled and turned into a disruption by serious cluelessness on the part of those "in" on the joke. Sometimes, Kelly impresses me with her good judgement. This isn't one of those. On the other hand, her reaction of clamming up when the drama starts, instead of defusing it with candid openness, reminds me of Kelly in early January, so I guess that's not surprising. Why not try a different approach to controversy, Kelly? You like drama? -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 17:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Well, now there's a new version at [[User:Kelly Martin/Q]] and if this keeps up, I will seriously reconsider whether I want to stay involved around here. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 18:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:That's your prerogative, but I can't help but think that everything is being seriously overblown. I wish we had an article on [[Social panic]], but we do not, so I'll have to reference [[Moral panic]]. When some things have the appearance of secrecy people tend to be inclined to think the absolute worst, no matter how far off the truth that may be. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 18:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::Which is why it's pretty much a lot smarter to maintain an impression of openness instead. At some point, you can't control the fact that people tend to react in certain ways, but you can refrain from provoking them. I don't blame people for being people, but I'm disappointed in you Cyde, and Kelly, for not knowing what people are like. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::You're right, Cyde, that attempted secrecy causes suspicion. Wouldn't it be best if someone just gave a clear explanation of the purpose of this list? The thing has cabal written all over it, it's no wonder that the listed users are concerned. [[User:Canderson7|Canderson7]] <sup>([[User_talk:Canderson7|talk]])</sup> 18:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
I concur with Oleg above. This showed poor judgment from all the people involved in keeping that list. The day wikipedians are voting according to what will make them look good among a click of wikipedia-veterans is a sad day for the community. Just the very notion that someone are keeping lists of "good" and "bad" wikipedians based on how they act and vote on RFA is very destructive to this community, a community based on everyone acting in good faith and according to what they believe will make this encyclopedia better. If I wanted to oppose an rfa because I didn't see the candidate fit as an admin, I should be able to make that oppose vote without any fear of ending up on some list that would haunt me later. Kelly seemed surprised that the existence of this userpage list became known. I think it would be more surprising if it didn't get known, and I bet many people knew about it long before it got blown up here. I just hope nobody made it influence their voting on Sean Black's rfa. But I'm afraid it might have. And that it might influence people in the future. That is not good, and Kelly should realize this. [[User:Shanes|Shanes]] 18:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:Agreed.'''[[User talk:Voice of All|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue">-of-</font><font color="black">All</font>]]''' 18:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
What is interesting to observe is the tortuous lengths Cyde and Kelly will go to to insist that this was a good, helpful, right, healthy thing to do, and that any upset is definitely not anything whatsoever at all to do with their angelic, prayerful selves, and that it is all ''everyone'' else's fault. That this was a stupendous error of judgement (of all those who compiled the original list), whatever its original intent, is plainly obvious; being unable to see that, especially when it is laid out for you in such painful detail, is an elegant corroboration of the judgement error already made. It also has the overtones of those days from primary school when you'd be passing a secret note around under the desks, and the teacher would say "What have you got there, Splash?" and you'd say "Nothing, Sir." as you screwed it into a ball and hid it under your chair. Then, at breaktime, you'd all huddle around the table in the back at the corner, and giggle, guiltily looking over your shoulders to see if any teachers were walking by and, when they caught you, you'd act all righteously indignant in hope you might bluster them into giving up. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] - [[User talk:Splash|tk]] 19:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Actually, what's really interesting, to me, is the response. A list like this (and, please note, that I've never approved of it) has as much value as people place in it. Anyone who would let a list like that guide their judgement has already made up their mind. Or, more appropriately, has decided to let that list do their thinking for them. That's abominable. At the same time, anyone on a list who thinks that said list has ''any'' relevance to their actions clearly has no idea how a wiki functions. I'm saddened that anyone has placed any stock in this ridiculous affair. That goes for both the people who made the list and the people who ended up on it. The best response from the people on the list would have been to call it idiotic (which it was) and carry on with their lives (which I hope they do). This has been a tawdry affair, both silly and unnecesary, and to exacerbate it further would do very little good and probably a great deal of harm. I suppose if anyone hasn't finished expressing their moral outrage at list compilation they should do it now. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 19:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:I couldn't care less about my name being on the list, but you must see that this situation is now self-exacerbating. Even if people stop commenting on it (which they won't), there are several things going on that make them feel worse than they already do for being placed on the list. First their oppose votes are roundly dismissed as ridiculous, then the RFA is closed somewhat unconventionally (again devaluing their concerns), and now we have RFA votes like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Eluchil404&diff=65403490&oldid=65234634 this] from Kelly Martin, which barring any other explanation look like a "because you're on my list" vote. This whole thing was built up wrong from the beginning, and it has been beset by unknowns. That clearly has brought out a lot of suspicion and unease in serious editors, amd I don't think it is going to go away readily. Now we just have a list of people have not had their concerns validated, but who ARE having their suspicions validated. --<font color="3300FF">[[User:Aguerriero|Aguerriero]] ([[User_talk:Aguerriero|talk]])</font> 00:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== Block Evade: [[User:McMeaty]] ==
 
[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Unregistered_editor_impersonating_others.|Here]], I reported an incident with an unregistered user making havoc, and it resulted in him being blocked an protection of the relevant article ([[Firebender]]). Well, he must have managed to change his IP, because he’s back at it. It seems he also has a member account, [[User:McMeaty]]. I’ve reverted his changes on [[talk: Firebender]], but they are still visible on the page history. He’s also added personal insults towards another editor to his talk page.--[[User:Fyre2387|Fyre2387]] 21:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:I've temporairily blocked him. '''[[User:Sasquatch|Sasquatch]]''' [[User_talk:Sasquatch|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Sasquatch|c]] 02:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
==Guy Montag banned from Deir Yassin massacre==
 
Nay [[#Guy Montag banned from Battle of Deir Yassin|one quarter of a moon has passed]], and I've banned Guy Montag from [[Deir Yassin massacre]] under the terms of his probation. Inserting copyvio information from [http://www.deiryassin.org/denierspr-980309-99.html here] and general tendentious editing on the talk page.
 
* Notified [[User_talk:Guy_Montag#Banned|here]].
* Copyvio diff[s] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deir_Yassin_massacre&diff=61495354&oldid=57446094 here].
* AE [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Guy_Montag|here]].
 
I'm not particularly attached to this, but I thought it was the right thing to do. I have encouraged him to appeal if he feels he has been wronged. - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
You've lost all sense of proportion and ruined an article over a non issue.
 
[[User:Guy Montag|Guy Montag]] 01:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:I don't think I've ''ruined the article'' :/ And I don't think you should be describing copyright violation as a "non issue". As I have mentioned, perhaps I was hasty but I think under the circumstances it was the right thing to do. You initially claimed that it was "one sentence", but have since discovered it was several paragraphs. I think you were a bit hasty in your initial response :) - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 01:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Note: given an initially incorrect reading of his probation, the ban was set to end at "22 July 2007", this as been amended to "9 October 2006". Apologies for this mistake. - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 01:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::I think it clearly inflames a situation that was almost over by re-banning Guy. It was already decided that the previous block was inappropriate, and that Guy's actions did not violate the terms of his probation. I am rather uncomfortable with the fact that you would ban Guy for such a similar infraction, I think your actions amount to a wheel-war and I would recomend that you undo the ban, and first discuss the situation here and with other administrators that were involved in the original dispute above.- [[User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg]] | [[User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Talk]] 01:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Guy has informed me that he will be requesting permission for the use of the copyrighted text. I have asked another couple of admins to check over my ban, and if they disagree then sobeit. I don't think it amounts to a ''wheel-war''. I don't think you can compare the two reasons for banning as "similar infractions". - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 01:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::::Francis, as you recently commented on some of the issues on that page on the talk page (as an editor, not as an admin), and as you took the opposite position to Guy, calling his position "farcical," it would probably be better if you unbanned him and allowed an uninvolved admin to take a look at the situation. I've also left a note on your talk page that shows one of the alleged copyright violations wasn't in fact copied at all. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 02:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Just for the clarity, only a fraction of the copyright violations are reporetd at the talk page. The article is full of it, from at least 3 different websites. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 06:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:It does seem that the article is/was a patchwork quilt of material copied from different places. Whatever we may think of the merits of Guy's version, it's risky for us to have an article appears to be effectively a copy-and-paste from multiple copyrighted sources. The fact that Guy is saying ''now'' that he's requesting permission for the use of the copyrighted text is obviously an acknowledgement that he knows he didn't have permission before. As breaches of probation go, I'd say this was at the high end of the scale; the ban seems reasonable in the circumstances. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 08:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
I've removed the ban per SV's request. If a things worth doing, its worth doing right. I welcome less involved parties than me to review the ban and reapply it if thought appropriate. - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 12:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:If the article is that much of a convoluted collection of copyvio, the only solution is to delete it completely and rebuild from scratch, IMO. Violating copyright first, and asking for permission later, is NOT acceptable whatsoever. [[User:Morven|Matthew Brown (Morven)]] ([[User talk:Morven|T]]:[[Special:Contributions/Morven|C]]) 02:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::I have decided that after it was clear that the article is literally loaded with copyvio's, I only will show the evidence for the first three section, and that can be found here: http://www.kimvdlinde.com/wikipedia/Deir_Yassin_Copyright_violation.doc The remaining two sections are done in part, and could be good or bad with regard to the number of copyvio's. What is clear is that the copyvio's are from various websites, and in part from pre Guy Montag, although all new insertions that I found originate from him. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 02:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:I ahave filed a ArbCom case for this, and the related bised editing here: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dier Yassin]]. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 15:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== Vote corrupted (again) by user ==
 
{{User|William Allen Simpson}} closed a vote in controversial circumstances. A list of categories different to the ones being voted on was added to ''during'' a vote after quite a few voters had already voted on the original list. He chose to include votes cast for deletion prior to their late addition as block votes for deletion of the late added categories too, even though the original list was of people who speak universal or majority national languages like English (hardly a topic worth a category), while the late additions were of small languages with so small a usage that the ability to speak it ''was'' notable (for example, Welsh). His cock-up in counting and in misrepresenting votes led to a decision at deletion review to undelete the categories added in and re-list them, something he grudgingly did, while refusing to accept any responsibility for the screw-up.
 
In the relist he added in a false explanation (how it was merely that they had not been listed for a full seven days, not that they had been suspiciously added in when a votes had been cast on other categories). He then corrupted the second vote by canvassing users, asking them if their original votes had been to delete the categories.
 
# 19:53, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Merchbow (People by language)
# 19:52, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Golfcam (People by language)
# 19:51, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Calsicol (People by language)
# 19:51, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Smerus (People by language)
# 19:50, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Osomec (People by language)
# 19:49, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Olborne (People by language)
# 19:49, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Musicpvm (People by language)
# 19:48, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Sumahoy (People by language)
# 19:47, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Yonatanh (People by language) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yonatanh&diff=prev&oldid=64708729 link to diff, all the above are the same notice]
# 19:38, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Syrthiss (some category help) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASyrthiss&diff=64707276&oldid=64694735 link to diff]
 
Prior to the deletion review, his attention to the error had been drawn by a Welsh user. Instead of paying any attention he attacked her in a manner that suggested he was hardly a neutral observer of the debate. She discovered that he had added in the loaded (and completely) misleading supposed explanation for the revote and that he was canvassing support, and informed the users on their pages that the issue was more complex, to try to undo the damage he was doing to the second vote.
 
To make a mess of counting the first time could be excused (even if his comments suggested he was hardly a neutral observer fit to interpret the results). To deliberately corrupt the revote through a misleading explanation and canvassing, is unacceptable. At this stage it is impossible to work out how many genuine voters are voting, or whether others were canvassed by other means (email, etc). What do we do now? Wait until they are deleted a second time and then relist a third time? At this stage any chance of a balanced debate had been destroyed by Mr Simpson's conduct. A glance at his edits suggests that this is not the first time that he has been engaged in widespread canvassing on issues he feels strongly about. He is making a mockery, and a mess, of the whole deletion system. [[User:Jtdirl]] 01:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
I've seen him doing this same sort of thing in other CFD discussions. Sorry, nothing specific, but it's as if he thinks he runs that place. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 01:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Actually Jtdirl, if you had bothered looking at my talk you would have seen that he most certianly did not canvass me for votes. [[User:Deb]] made the same erroneous assumption and then deleted her comment off my talk page when she realized her error. He asked me to do two things: do an unreleated history only undeletion that had sat around for ~20 days on DRV (IIRC), and to undelete the cats relative to the relisted CFD because people in a froth about it had re-added items back to the deleted cats and he didn't want to see relinked categories in articles while it was sorted out. I'm going to go check the other edits listed by you to verify that you haven't misrepresented them as well. Asking users who have participated before in a discussion to weigh in is perfectly reasonable, especially if perhaps he felt he was in error in the original closing...as long as all of them are notified and there isn't any attempt to sway the debate ("its up for discussion again please vote KEEP"). [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 11:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Linked the notice above, it was a question regarding their intention on the debate. Full disclosure is a nice thing, rather than a witch hunt, wouldn't you say? [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 11:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::Asking users if they intended their vote to be "to delete" is an non-too-subtle way of canvassing. If he had asked then what their vote was meant to would be somewhat neutral. But asking them to deny his interpretation that their vote to delete, at a time when the he wants people to come to a page to vote to delete, is blatent fixing. Deb caught him up to his usual tricks and simply pointed out that the issue wasn't straightforward and showed them a link to a debate. He has blatently now corrupted two votes on the issue. Users have been blocked from Wikipedia for less. [[User:Jtdirl|<span style="color:green; background-color:pink">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]]</font></sup> 20:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Please desist from your '''personal attacks''' and repeated '''prevarication'''. The Cfd practice is that such parties be notified upon re-listing. The neutrally worded [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yonatanh&diff=prev&oldid=64708729 notice] was (all notices were substantially identical):
:''Please confirm whether you meant your previous discussion to apply to the 3 remaining languages, as they received only 4 days of comments, instead of the full 7.''
:--[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 18:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
: Why are Wikipedians ''voting'' on this matter in the first place? --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 00:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:: That is, indeed, a good question. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|t]] &bull; [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]]</small> 01:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
A list of categories of people by language spoken was put up for deletion. The list was all of national dominant languages (eg, Danish, given that practically 100% of Danes speak Danish, Dutch, given that practically 100% of Dutch people speak Dutch, etc) and mass international languages like English, French, and Spanish. Categorising people by such languages is pointless &mdash; its a bit by listing people per having two eyes, etc. In other words it is the natural default that one would expect and in no way notable. Well into the vote a ''different'' type of languages, small use languages where the ability to speak it is so rare as to be notable, for example, Welsh (which few Welsh people can speak), Latin (which few Catholic clergy can speak anymore) etc were sneaked in unto the list even though they are fundamentally different. (For example, the fact that Prince Charles can speak English isn't notable. The fact that he can speak Welsh is notable and made headlines when he studied it. The fact that George Bush can (sort of) speak English is not notable. It is to be expected. If he could speak Latin or Welsh, that would be notable, putting him in a very small elite.) Simpson counted votes cast to delete the first block of widely spoken languages which had been caste ''before'' not small minority languages were sneaked onto the list, as votes to delete the ''entire'' list. When he was informed by users, who presumed he had not noticed the mistake, of the error, he turned on users and attacked them. A deletion review relisted the rarely spoken languages, amid much moaning from Simpson. He got them relisted (grudlingly), put a misleading explanation for the reason of the vote at the top, placed the relist back with the earlier vote (meaning that new users had to dig around in all the archives to try and track it down) and then to rig it more contacted users in a none-too-subtle attempt to canvass them. So having mishandled one vote, he then tried to set up the second to deliver the result he had announced his support for. But then, as Cyde noted, Simpson seems to be acting like judge, jury and executioner far too often, rather than standing back and letting independent people not committed to one side, to analyse the results, reach a conclusion and implement it. [[User:Jtdirl|<span style="color:green; background-color:pink">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]]</font></sup> 07:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:I was '''not notified''' of this discussion by the petitioner.
 
:To the best of my observation, and careful annotation on the current discussion,
:#No languages were '''sneaked''' onto the list by anybody, they were all properly tagged by {{user|Chicheley}}.
:#It is not unusual for additional categories to be added as discovered during an umbrella nomination.
:#The entire discussion had more than 20 participants. There was no controversy. This is an overwhelming supermajority. Also, look at the well-reasoned comments.
:#The actual count for the discussion following complete tagging was '''8d:3k'''. Again, clear, convincing, and obvious supermajority.
:#You will be given an opportunity to '''prove''' that I "turned on users and attacked them".
:#The deletion review was concluded '''promptly''' (not awaiting the full 7 days) and the debate relisted.
:#The relist copied the entire preceding discussion, as required at [[Wikipedia:Deletion process]].
:#The relist explanation was entirely '''accurate''' and '''objective''': RELISTED FOR FURTHER COMMENTS PURSUANT TO [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 18]], because 3 categories received only 4 days of comments, instead of the full 7.
 
:I will bring the above personal attacks and prevarication to RfAR as soon as practicable. (I'm very busy, I have a couple of briefs due at the Court of Appeals.) The involved administrators should have their priviledges revoked.
::--[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 18:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== Improper reversion on [[WP:SOCK]] ==
 
Please take action against [[User:FT2|FT2]] for improper reverting of Wikipedia's policy on legitimate sockpuppets. [[User:PooIGuy|PooIGuy]] 02:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
:It is worth noting that {{vandal|PooIGuy}}'s edits to [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry]] were the first and third edits under that account name. (The comment above was the second.) Although new users are of course welcome to participate in policy discussions, I think that a major edit to a policy page by a brand-new account is suspicious enough to merit reversion. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 02:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Blocked as an impersonator of {{admin|PoolGuy}}. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 02:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Note that PoolGuy is limited by Arbcom to one account. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 13:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
==Fake user==
 
I really hate it. [[User:Wizkid357]] wrote a message on my talkpage and signed it as Ral315. I thought I ought to report here, as he is clearly faking his sig, but still...he is trying to be Ral315. <font color="green">[[User:Treebark|Tree]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Treebark|bark]]</font> <font color="red">([[User talk:Treebark|talk]])</font> 03:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:It doesn't appear that Wizkid357 was trying to impersonate Ral315. I assume that you're talking about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Treebark&diff=prev&oldid=65084269 this edit] to your talk page...? It seems that Wizkid357 was just copy-paste quoting Ral315's remark from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiproject_SpongeBob_SquarePants&diff=prev&oldid=57292179 Ral's comment here]. Wizkid probably should have made more of an effort to set off his remark as a quotation, but he did sign the edit with his own signature. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 05:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
::'''Note''' Based on the user page and edit history, it appears that Wizkid is a pre-teen, so may be a little careless in some areas (like the barnstar that doesn't seem to have been put there by the editor whose name is signed to it). [[User:Fan-1967|Fan-1967]] 20:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== New user requesting help may be a sockpuppet ==
 
When a bot at #wikipedia-bootcamp notified users that {{user|RumDuck}} was in need of help, he was asking why his IP was blocked. He used {{tl|helpme}} prior to any welcome message posted there. It appears that his IP is blocked because of the indef block put on {{vandal|Werto}}. Based on the way that he is signing his messages as well as the use of the template with no knowledge how to, I believe he is a sockpuppet of Werto. I believe that the IP address that it came from should have a block on account creation, now that he's used it to try and get unblocked. [[User:Ryulong|Ryūlóng]] 05:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
:The talk page of the IP in question is peppered with {{tl|blatantvandal}}, and appears to also be involved with racist remarks that Werto was blocked for ({{IPvandal|24.83.203.198}}). [[User:Ryulong|Ryūlóng]] 06:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
::When I did block, I checked to make sure the account creation was disabled, but I have no idea how it works out, since I am still somewhat unfamiliar on the new blocking system and how it "works." [[User:Zscout370]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]</sup></small> 06:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
=={{ipvandal|216.164.203.90}}==
It appears that the "Nanook vandal", known by such registered names as {{vandal|Raptor30}}, {{vandal|Rappy30V2}} (V3, etc.) and {{vandal|Nookdog}}, is asking various people to be unblocked. If it can be demonstrated that there is collateral damage at other IPs (strangely, starting with 64) or because others using "Google Web Accelerator, which assigns a small set of proxy Ip's [sic] to it's [sic] users" as claimed (despite the seeming impossibility, as this user's IP has been static from the start), then any such damage certainly should be mitigated. Given the massive [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive119#216.164.203.90 & Nookdog|evidence]] against 216.164.203.90, however, this IP should not be unblocked under any circumstances for the foreseeable future. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> ([[User:RadioKirk|u]]|[[User talk:RadioKirk|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/RadioKirk|c]])</small></tt> 06:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:This user (who previously impersonated me in IRC and on Wikinews) has created [[wikt:User:Radio Kirk]] (where I already have an account, without the space) and [[wikispecies:User:RadioKirk]] (where I didn't) to impersonate me again. Fortunately, it's painfully obvious... <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> ([[User:RadioKirk|u]]|[[User talk:RadioKirk|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/RadioKirk|c]])</small></tt> 21:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== {{user|Easyrider roo}} ==
 
[[User:Easyrider roo]] has a total of [[Special:Contributions/Easyrider_roo|four edits]], consisting of only copyright violations. The user has posted the entire afterword ("Author's Note") to [[Philip K. Dick]]'s novel ''[[A Scanner Darkly]]'' in two places: [[User:Easyrider roo/AScannerDarkly]] and [[User:Easyrider roo]]. Note, this is not just the list of names that appears in the movie. I have just blanked the pages, but I think the history should be purged. Could someone take care of this please? &mdash;[[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] | [[User talk:Viriditas|Talk]] 07:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
:Next time, I suggest following the procedure at [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]]. These things usually are not an emergency. Basically, you blank the page, use the {{tl|copyvio}} template and then list the page at the copyright problems subpage that is on the template after you save the page. Anyway, I deleted [[User:Easyrider roo/AScannerDarkly]], since it does not have much purpose now that the text is deleted. It is not necessary to remove copyright violations from the history unless there is a complaint. Therefore, I would have saved the user page, except for the fact that there is a good chance that he or she is not coming back based upon my experience with copyright violators - all of the edits were copyright violations, they were all made on the same day and no edits have been made since, which is classic copyright violator style, at least for text (as opposed to images). -- [[User:Kjkolb|Kjkolb]] 08:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks. The reason I wanted to bypass [[WP:CP]] was due to the fact that this was showing up in recent Google search results, which I just found. The text was uploaded by the user around the time the [[A Scanner Darkly (film)|film]] was in limited release (July 7), however the film is going into wide release on July 28, so I felt that a quick response might be needed. As I recall, WP:CP has a backlog. &mdash;[[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] | [[User talk:Viriditas|Talk]] 08:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== {{user|Molobo}}, {{user|Sciurin%C3%A6}} ==
 
These two were edit warring over articles that concerned Poles in Germany or similar things. If you check this diff: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=German_Empire&diff=60238116&oldid=60236755], you will see that both versions are sort of biased, Molobos was at least sourced. The blocking admin (Dmcdevit) said he was tired etc. and wouldn't do the same thing (evidence collecting) for Sciurinae, but that probably someone should do it, because it was always him who pursued molobos edits and warred over them. However, Sciurinae was blocked for 72 hours, (despite warning for months), and Molobo for 1 year. I don't think that Molobo should be unblocked, he surely did what he shouldnt have done, but why is his sparing partner only blocked for 72 hours? [[User:Azmoc|Azmoc]] 07:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Perhaps Dmcdevit thought that there was still hope for Sciurinae, and that a shorter block might drive home the point that we're serious about not tolerating edit warring. Checking the block log, I note that this is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Sciurin%C3%A6 Sciurinae's first block], whereas Molobo has been blocked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Molobo many times over the last nine months] for edit warring.
:Molobo was nearly blocked indefinitely a couple of months ago &ndash; see [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive89#Molobo_blocked_for_disruptive_edit_warring]] &ndash; and was only allowed to return after a shorter (1 month) block on the condition that he refrain from the edit warring conduct that got him in trouble in the first place. Molobo has had ample opportunities to reform his behaviour, and has failed to avail himself of those opportunities.
:I assume and expect that should Sciurinae fail to modify his behaviour, he too will face additional warnings and escalating blocks&mdash;however I hope that this 72-hour block (which, for a first block, is far from short) will discourage further edit warring. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 18:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== [[Vestal Senior High School]] ==
 
Could some more people watch this article? I've removed some slanders from it - but it is still full of trivia which (even if true) is of no value to wikipedia, and is likely to attract more nonsense. This is a good example of why schools' articles are a Bad Idea. --[[User:Aoratos|Aoratos]] 08:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
:Added. This is a ''very nice'' high school article. <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|ana]]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">[[User talk:Kilo-Lima|T]]</font></sup> 11:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== question ==
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_a_chatroom] is this a personal attack or not? [[User:Azmoc|Azmoc]] 11:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
:It has been suggested that [[User:Azmoc]] was [[User:Ackoz]]. This pretty well confirms it. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 19:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== [[user:Gamesmasterg9]] --- case of trolling on [[Vote Bank]] ==
 
This user has been found persistently indulged in Moving the page to different Titles after being unsuccessful in AFD for which he nominated the page .He has created new page [[Votebank]] and have done vandal redirects to this one which have now been fixed by redirecting to the old version.PLZ also see relevant talk on the page [[Votebank politics in India]] which has been shifted to this title by this user from [[Vote Bank]].I recommend some admin action in this case.The user must recieve block for these disruptions.[[User:Holywarrior|Holy---+---Warrior]] 17:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
==[[Laser Tag]] and [[WP:EL]]==
On [[July 6]] [[2006]], I made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moeron&diff=next&oldid=65170185 this] revert with VandalProof and has resulted in some problems. {{user|65.78.112.37}} then made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMoeron&diff=64972354&oldid=64541267 this comment] on my talk page and re-added the link [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laser_tag&diff=next&oldid=64971881 here]. In response and based on criteria at [[WP:EL]], I cleared out links [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laser_tag&diff=next&oldid=64973053 here] with the edit summary of '''removed a great numer of links based on WP:EL (specific companies; dicussion-only forums; niche or small area tag sites, ect.''' that reported on other aspects and companies and clubs dealing with [[Laser tag]]. The IP then reverted my edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laser_tag&diff=next&oldid=64973632], commented on my talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMoeron&diff=64981839&oldid=64973950], and started commenting on the dicussion at [[Talk:Laser tag#External Link Discussion]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALaser_tag&diff=64979319&oldid=64975649] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laser_tag&diff=next&oldid=64979392] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laser_tag&diff=next&oldid=64983961]. I started stating some reasons why the links were removed in detail [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laser_tag&diff=next&oldid=64984127] (IP responded [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALaser_tag&diff=64986177&oldid=64984599] and I responded to this with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laser_tag&diff=next&oldid=64986338]). The IP then gave reasons for each link [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laser_tag&diff=next&oldid=64986364 here], and I responded to each with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laser_tag&diff=next&oldid=64987127 this edit] as did {{user|Sugarskane}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laser_tag&diff=next&oldid=64988361 here]. Both me and Sugarskane took a break and since then, the IP has responded with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALaser_tag&diff=64997216&oldid=64988667 this], using our sleeping/work/ect as a reason to re-add the links. Even before this, Sugarskane had implored the IP several times to express why these links are needed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laser_tag&diff=next&oldid=64982365] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laser_tag&diff=next&oldid=64986177].
 
Finally, I returned last night, saw the reentries to the ELs on the main Laser Tag page and reverted. The IP then left me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moeron&diff=next&oldid=64982489 this message], then user {{user|Whateverpt}} (most likely the IP, based on talk page comments and articles of interest) left [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMoeron&diff=65170185&oldid=65166577 this message], and the IP then left [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moeron&diff=next&oldid=65170185 this message]. I believe this is all to [[WP:POINT|make a point]] by the IP to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moeron&diff=next&oldid=65170185 push his webpage] that was the starting point of this mess.
 
I would VERY much like someone to take a look at this and respond. I am going to walk away now, because the time I spent on this the other night, and the time I am spending now reported this, could be used for most important things like creating articles, [[WP:CVU]], and helping to wikify articles. Thank you for who ever can respond. Cheers! -- [[User:Moeron|<font color="darkblue" size="2" 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> 17:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Also, [[User:Whateverpt]] created the article [[Actual Reality]], which seems not to be [[WP:N|notable]] enough for inclusion, but since I have mentioned all of the above, I will refrain from "prod"ing or "csd"ing it. They have also include the webpage I have brought into question above in the article as a external link. -- [[User:Moeron|<font color="darkblue" size="2" 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> 18:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::Moeron, you've done a great job removing all those external links. That other user(s) is QUITE in the wrong here. Simple case of overlinking. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 18:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::I originally commented out the entire external link section and asked someone with more experience to the topic to look over the section. There were a few links that, during the discussion, I thought might be good to keep around. Could a non-biased, more experienced, admin look at the following and consider them for inclusion?
:::* [http://www.lasertagparts.com/mtdesign.htm Miles Tag DIY Laser Tag System]
:::* [http://www.laserforums.com/ Laser Forums]
:::* [http://www.fragtag.com.au/ Frag Tag]
 
::::"Non-biased, more experienced"? --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 20:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Non-biased -- someone that hasn't been dealing with Whateverpt... More experienced -- someone that knows the EL stuff better than I do. Do any of the above links seem valid for inclusion? --[[User:Sugarskane|Sugarskane]] 16:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Good job Moeron. And shame on whoever is that IP for blatant lack of civility. [[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson]] 20:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Looks good to me. "Actual Reality" is mentioned VERY breifly an almost inconsequentially in the article. The link that was readded was to a site with what appears to be a particular company's laser sensor (and possibly equipment). Its almost useless to the reader of the article. Also one of the diffs I checked with a brief arguement by the anon is a straw man arguement ("the other links are still there" and its relatives). Last, the other diff I saw with 5 or so links added is clearly not a good idea. [[User:Kevin Breitenstein|Kevin_b_er]] 00:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
==[[User:Azmoc]]==
{{user|Azmoc}} has only one edit to article space, but spends all of his time making uncivil remarks and attacks. I have blocked him for 48 hours (the second time he has been blocked) for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zoe&diff=prev&oldid=65188425 this] threat of vandalism. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 19:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== {{IPvandal|81.36.29.122}} ==
 
This guy simply doesn't follow wikipedia's standards. He continuosly makes edits to [[Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2]] without showing any proof, then when asked, still doesn't until he gets close to breaking the 3rr. Even then, he claims other experienced and respected user's to be ''idiots'' or ''stupid'', makes various personal attacks, and blanks user's comments[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADragon_Ball_Z%3A_Budokai_Tenkaichi_2&diff=65015485&oldid=65008042]. He ignores all warnings given to him, and has been given countless chances to stop his hostile behavior/vandalism. I am becoming very stressed with this retunring vandal, as he uses different IPs to escape blocking, and is very stuck up. It's becoming a challenge for me to not make personal attacks myself.--[[User:KojiDude|KojiDude]] ([[User talk:KojiDude|talk]]) 20:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== Port scanning ==
 
I'm wondering why I'm getting this.
 
16:55:56 Port Scanning has been detected from 207.142.131.228 (scanned ports:TCP (4749, 4748, 4746, 4742, 4744, 4745))
 
15:59:46 Port Scanning has been detected from 207.142.131.228 (scanned ports:TCP (3179, 3146, 3181, 3184, 3182, 3183))
 
(timestamp is in gmt-4) This is a Wikimedia IP. I've been getting this intermittently for the past 12 hours. Just thought I'd make a note of it someplace. —&nbsp;[[User:nathanrdotcom|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Natha'''</span>]][[User:ILovePlankton/My loyalties to my friends|<span style="color:#336666">'''n'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:nathanrdotcom|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>20:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)</em></sub>
 
: [[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)]] might get more response. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 20:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks, I'll post it there too. If you feel you need to remove the post from here, go right ahead - I'll be watching both places. —&nbsp;[[User:nathanrdotcom|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Natha'''</span>]][[User:ILovePlankton/My loyalties to my friends|<span style="color:#336666">'''n'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:nathanrdotcom|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>20:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)</em></sub>
 
 
 
== User 68.96.102.166 - please unprotect talk page, he's vandalizing again ==
 
The block for IP editor 68.96.102.166 has apparently expired, because he is making a mess. He's blanked the [[Talk:Newbie]] page, redirected [[Floob]] from [[Newbie]] to [[Wright brothers]], and I can't warn him because his talk page is protected. Could someone lift the talk page block and/or reblock him? Thanks - [[User:BaseballBaby|<font color="darkblue">'''Baseball,Baby!'''</font>]] [[User talk:BaseballBaby|<font color="red"><sup>''balls''</sup></font>]]<font color="darkblue"><sup>•</sup></font>[[Special:Contributions/BaseballBaby|<font color="red"><sup>''strikes''</sup></font>]] 22:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Unprotected (you know, that's the reason I was one of the few against allowing blocked users to edit their user talk pages...). --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 22:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== personal attack and/or death threat ==
 
From
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Self-contradiction&diff=65142745&oldid=65138837]
:"Now at least I know there are some people who personally cannot stand me here and will do anything to delete any content I enter - even if they are too stupid to notice that the joke is on them. There is only one way to deal with bullies - a gun. If you are collecting my articles, you must to be shot to save humanity, per your own definition - a Darwin Award.".
 
[[User:Phr|Phr]] ([[User talk:Phr|talk]]) 22:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
:Indef blocked. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[Special:Emailuser/Mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 22:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
::Awww... that was the most amusing nutjob I've seen in ages! Check out his [[User:Agquarx|user page]] if you haven't already. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<font color="green">"?!"</font>]] 22:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
:::: The current page is nothing more than a "user banned" notice. I assume you meant to link [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Agquarx&oldid=20490041 here]. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:::That's a surreal userpage. --[[User:Deskana|Lord Deskana]] ([[User talk:Deskana|talk]]) 22:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Wow, that makes me sad. [[User:Phr|Phr]] ([[User talk:Phr|talk]]) 23:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
There's a [[WP:TIGER|tiger]] if I ever saw one. [[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·[[User:Ikiroid/Desk|desk]]·[[User talk:Ikiroid/Help Me Improve|Advise me]]) 22:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Would it be appropriate to clear off the "novel" the user posted on their talk page? [[User:Paul Cyr|Paul Cyr]] 23:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== [[User:Sarner]] and [[User:DPeterson]] ==
 
I've blocked [[User:Sarner]] for 48 hours for the following personal attack: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DPeterson&diff=65212986&oldid=62830008]. There's some nastiness going on here; I first became aware of it when I denied a very inappropriate speedy deletion tag on [[Advocates for Children in Therapy]] (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy&diff=65215286&oldid=65210917]), which itself could have merited a block, but instead I gave a stern warning. I left WP for the day and came back to find they'd had a bit of a fight on my talk page. [[Advocates for Children in Therapy]] has now been nominated by Sarner for deletion; his reasoning consists of a LOT of failing to assume good faith. I invite others to review the situation. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<font color="orange">'''juice'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 01:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== [[User:SandyGeorgia]] - out of control? ==
 
Sorry to bring this up again but it seems this user is now totally out of control.
 
Here she is accusing another editor she is engaged with in an edit war on [[Hugo Chavez]] and [[Criticism of Hugo Chavez]] of "personal attack" for politely asking her to "keep a cool head" and expressing his opinion, well within guidelines, on her edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SuperFlanker&oldid=65292694#Personal_attack] (this seems particularly mean-spirited to me as English is [[User:SuperFlanker]]'s second language and it must be so stressful for him to have his usage constantly critiqued and micro-managed in this way).
 
Here she is using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Torinir User talk:Torinir‎] for her own personal attacks and dialogue because he was going to close [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19_Domineering_Editor_on_Asperger_Syndrome Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19 Domineering Editor on Asperger Syndrome], as she had requested herself [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19_Domineering_Editor_on_Asperger_Syndrome&diff=64881041&oldid=64750603] but was actually beaten to it by [[User:Kylu]](???).
 
Here she is trying to misrepresent the final edits on the previous [[WP:ANI]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=65269324#User:SandyGeorgia] thus [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19_Domineering_Editor_on_Asperger_Syndrome&diff=65288782&oldid=65288153] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19_Domineering_Editor_on_Asperger_Syndrome&diff=65289370&oldid=65288782].
 
I am posting this here because it is impossible for me to negotiate with a person who manipulates like this and I honestly do not want to get into some kind of personal, ongoing war with her, but this behavior CANNOT be right? --[[User:Zeraeph|Zeraeph]] 02:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Misrepresentations again. It looks like I've acquired a friend for life.
 
:I did not request the mediation be closed: on the contrary. Zeraeph is pointing to a copy of my post here, on AN/I. I have suggested that this be taken to proper channels, which *is* mediation. I requested the case be closed here on AN/I, because Zeraeph's previous comments did not belong here. [[User:FrancisTyers]] already requested that he not post about it here. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zeraeph#AS] Dispute resolution belongs on MEDCAB. Yet, here it is again, although Zeraeph has still refused to talk directly with me [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zeraeph#AS][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SandyGeorgia#AS_2] about his allegations, and requested that the Mediation be closed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome#MedCab_case] before it was even started.
 
:I have reminded another editor that if he continually characterized legitimate edits as vandalism, that could be interpreted as a personal attack.
 
:And Zeraeph came into a conversation I initiated with the mediator, when he quickly closed the mediation case that was and still is sorely needed. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy]] 03:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::Once again [[User:SandyGeorgia]] is making statements that do not accord with the facts of her behaviour in the histories thus:
 
::She says: ''I did not request the mediation be closed: on the contrary."''
 
:::I will admit that I have only just noticed that the statement that seemed to indicate her wish for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19_Domineering_Editor_on_Asperger_Syndrome 2006-07-19 Domineering Editor on Asperger Syndrome] to be closed ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19_Domineering_Editor_on_Asperger_Syndrome&diff=64881041&oldid=64750603]''Per the instructions at the top of this page ('''Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. Please take such disputes to mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration rather than here. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be removed.'''), I respectfully request that this issue be taken to proper channels, and struck from this page. This doesn't seem to have the best means of addressing the issue, or the right place for it. Thanks, [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy]] 16:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)'') was, in fact, a copy and paste from the previous [[WP:ANI]], which human error I regret, however I responded to it as the request to close [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19_Domineering_Editor_on_Asperger_Syndrome 2006-07-19 Domineering Editor on Asperger Syndrome] I sincerely believed it to be here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19_Domineering_Editor_on_Asperger_Syndrome&diff=64896474&oldid=64881041] thus: ''::I am in agreement, though I initially hoped it might be possible to resolve this issue here, which is why I made the request, but since I saw the responses on [[WP:AN/I]] I now realise that would be inappropriate, as well as impossible --[[User:Zeraeph|Zeraeph]] 18:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)'' more than three days ago, which should have made the misunderstanding abundantly clear, as well as my feelings on the topic, as I have also done in on her own talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&diff=64895266&oldid=64878365].
 
::She says: '':I have reminded another editor that if he continually characterized legitimate edits as vandalism, that could be interpreted as a personal attack.''
 
:::And yet in this edit[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SuperFlanker&diff=65283199&oldid=65281507] she clearly states (follow links for full picture):''::::I could accept your apology, but you have just done it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez&diff=65279467&oldid=65276697 for the third time.] This is your third warning now to refrain from attacking my character or motives or good faith editing. I am not vandalizing, I am not retaliating, and I am certainly calm. As you know, we've had conversations before about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez#Foreign_Affairs_article your attempts to paint me as hysterical,] and I will not accept any more personal attack characterizations, either on talk page or in edit summaries. Please refrain from describing me as retaliating or vandalizing in edit summaries, and please refrain from referring to my emotional state, unless you are able to see through your computer into mine. I am certainly calm, and expect these personal attacks to stop. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy]] 22:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)''
 
::She says:And Zeraeph came into a conversation I initiated with the mediator, when he quickly closed the mediation case that was and still is sorely needed. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy]] 03:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::And yet, in this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19_Domineering_Editor_on_Asperger_Syndrome&diff=65288089&oldid=64934522] it can be clearly seen that, in fact [[User:Kylu]] closed the case, which fact I was about to communicate to [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Torinir User:Torinir‎]] when I saw this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Torinir&diff=65286988&oldid=61505680] and this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Torinir&diff=65289091&oldid=65286988] stating: ''Not so fast :-) The user appears to have started that mediation for the sole purpose of harassing me, he didn't back up a single allegation, and the case needs to be closed in a way that I'm also satisfied. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy]] 23:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)''
 
:::''I understand. But he initiated the action for one reason only; he gave not an ounce of evidence for anything, smeared me on AN/I, MedCab, the AS talk page, and my talk page. I have recorded the final AN/I statements on the MedCab case, and will make a final statement there, because it was not a genuine attempt at mediation. It was a smear. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy]] 23:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)'' which, coming from the same person I had just seen, in this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SuperFlanker&diff=65283199&oldid=65281507] instruct another editor to ''please refrain from referring to my emotional state, unless you are able to see through your computer into mine.'' made her claims to know my motivation in a far more complex way seems very hypocritical and vexatious to me. As though there must be one liberal standard for [[User:SandyGeorgia]] and another, far more rigorous one every user who does not suit her, to be policed by [[User:SandyGeorgia]].
 
::When I tried to communicate with her, by her own admission she simply disregarded every word I said thus: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=64842638] (making exactly the same assumptions about me that she fobids other editors to make about herself.
 
::At this stage I do not know any way to communicate civily with a person who consistently misrepresents facts and insistently applies double standards, and I do not know what can be resolved by mediation with a person who constantly re-invents history and refuses to deal in the facts.
 
::I have already explained, in several places such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19_Domineering_Editor_on_Asperger_Syndrome&diff=64897752&oldid=64896474] ('':I do not see any realistic way to resolve any problem directly with any person who's only attempt at resolution is to distort the facts as [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy]] has chosen to do below and in other instances. Resolution is dependent upon change, not pretence. --[[User:Zeraeph|Zeraeph]] 18:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)'') why I feel I made a serious error in judgement in thinking this could be solved by mediation, which I now fully acknowledge. --[[User:Zeraeph|Zeraeph]] 04:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Now that you see the misunderstanding (that I did not request mediation be closed), I hope you will either speak directly with me, e-mail me, or re-open mediation, and refrain from further entries here. As Francis explained to you, this is not the right place for dispute resolution. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy]] 04:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::All of the above are out of the question. I cannot, and will not, participate in any form of dialogue with a person who is manipulative and is not truthful, for many reasons, not least of which is the sheer futility of attempting achieve resolution in the face of that kind of behavior.
 
::When I thought mediation was an option I did not realise [[User:SandyGeorgia]] was capable of the degree of deceit she has shown since I requested it. Thus, my request is now withdrawn.
 
::This is not a "personal dispute" of any kind. This is an issue of [[User:SandyGeorgia]]'s abusive behavior towards other editors and manipulation of WP:Policy to suit herself. I am not prepared to enable that to go on covertly. --[[User:Zeraeph|Zeraeph]] 05:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Second mediation refused. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-23_User:Zeraeph] [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy]] 05:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
 
::It should be obvious from my comments above that I will decline to participate in any dialogue or mediation involving [[User:SandyGeorgia]]. If any Admin wishes to mail me for a, strictly private ,further explanation please feel free.
 
::I find it telling that [[User:SandyGeorgia]] has not acknowledged, let alone attempted to explain, the two blatant lies she told, and I showed evidence of, on this board tonight. --[[User:Zeraeph|Zeraeph]] 05:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::I find it 'telling' that you wouldn't participate in mediation, myself. Without investigating terribly far, I'm troubled that both of you are making personal attacks at each other above. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 06:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== Repetitive category deletion attempts ==
 
I'm an administrator but I'm a little biased so I figured I'd ask for an impartial ear. Isn't there some unwritten rule about nominating categories for deletion over and over?
*[[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_29#Category:Entertainers_who_died_aged_x_etc._categories|Attempt 1]]
*[[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_17#Entertainers_who_died...|Attempt 2]]
*[[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_17#Entertainers_by_age_upon_death|Attempt 3]] and now...
*[[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_20#Entertainers_by_age_at_death|Attempt 4]]
If they were whacked on the first or even second attempt, I wouldn't say much ---- but FOUR now?! All within an eight-month span.
 
Moreover, this time, the categories weren't even tagged until three days after the CFD was started so if you're like me and don't keep close tabs on [[WP:CFD]], then you end up only being the fourth or fifth vote which is clearly a disadvantage.
 
What gives?! —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 03:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
They appear to each be nominated by different editors, who presumably all independently thought they should be deleted and didn't know there had already been a discussion about it, as most of the talk pages don't mention the previous CfDs. The two recent ones are also several months apart from the others and each other. Tagging them incorrectly is bad, but I think it is pretty likely that these users just all thought they should be deleted. —[[User:Centrx|Centrx]]→[[User talk:Centrx|''talk'']]&nbsp;&bull; 08:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:Pppppfffttt. Oh well.... [[Sour grapes]] = —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 00:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
=={{User5|rootology}}==
This user is tagging article after article for deletion to [[WP:POINT|"illustrate a point"]] relative to the current [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica_%283rd_nomination%29|Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD]]. A little warning might be in order. Thanks. ''([[User_talk:Netscott|→]][[User:Netscott|<span class='pBody' style='border: 0; color: gray; padding: 0; font-size: 100%;'>Netscott</span>]])'' 04:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:This user's own words, "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHipocrite&diff=65262370&oldid=65260908 I'm trying to demonstrate]". Definitely fits the definition of POINT. ''([[User_talk:Netscott|→]][[User:Netscott|<span class='pBody' style='border: 0; color: gray; padding: 0; font-size: 100%;'>Netscott</span>]])'' 04:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:Every one of the SEVEN tagged articles are minor ones that warrent PROD and all fail a variety of things. Some of them have support from others to delete. What disruption? I can't PROD articles? [[User:Rootology|rootology]] 04:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::Let's assume good faith here. He could have used other accounts--which I believe the wikipedia's rules are like ebay's: none can be blocked and they can't interact on the same articles, and it's allowed--so his actions would not be watched, but he didn't. [[assume good faith?]] [[User:Hardvice|Hardvice]] 04:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::Rotology's words, "I'm trying to demonstrate that the WP:WEB for wikis overall are valid to keep". Tagging article after article for deletion to illustrate your point is not the way to do things. You're just going to cause problems and anger folks who in seeing your POINTed behavior are likely to start editing in retaliatory ways relative to yourself and further disrupt Wikipedia. ''([[User_talk:Netscott|→]][[User:Netscott|<span class='pBody' style='border: 0; color: gray; padding: 0; font-size: 100%;'>Netscott</span>]])'' 04:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Hardvice, according to [[User:Tony Sidaway]] you're on notice for trolling over this issue... you're not in the best position to be discussing this matter. ''([[User_talk:Netscott|→]][[User:Netscott|<span class='pBody' style='border: 0; color: gray; padding: 0; font-size: 100%;'>Netscott</span>]])'' 04:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Not to mention that "he didn't try to hide his rule violations" is hardly a saving argument. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 04:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::::I think it's okay for people to make points while NOT disrupting Wikipedia. I don't see how those articles are inappropriate to nominate, nor how the AfD debates that might result (if the PRODs don't go through) would be disruptive any more than any other debate. To me, [[WP:POINT]] use of deletion process involves either (1) tagging of articles that are clearly worthwhile, or (2) tagging of articles for disingenuous reasons (such as, because they are edited by an editor someone else is in a dispute with). [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<font color="orange">'''juice'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 04:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::It's understandable that in light of {{User5|hardvice}}'s [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopedia_Of_Stupid&diff=prev&oldid=64640757 own] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Parodies/Wickerpedia&diff=prev&oldid=64641837 pointed] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kamelopedia&diff=prev&oldid=64641845 demonstrations] he'd be inclined to defend [[User:Rootology]]. Both of these users should be blocked for an extended period of time. ''([[User_talk:Netscott|→]][[User:Netscott|<span class='pBody' style='border: 0; color: gray; padding: 0; font-size: 100%;'>Netscott</span>]])'' 04:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Mass AfDing/PRODing is going to rile folks up especially given the environment it's been done in. Doing that just causes hard feelings and inclines people to act in retaliatory ways... ''([[User_talk:Netscott|→]][[User:Netscott|<span class='pBody' style='border: 0; color: gray; padding: 0; font-size: 100%;'>Netscott</span>]])'' 04:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Netscott, I'm actually not trolling. I am expressing myself. I am inclined to think you are the one trolling: following root around, personal attacks on me here, and stirring up trouble. [[User:Hardvice|Hardvice]] 05:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
I have to say that if the only way we can reference an article is by it's homepage, then that may indeed not qualify it as an encyclopedia entry under [[WP:RS]]. Though that is just a guideline, not policy, if we are not able to find reliable secondary sources about the subject, it may not be notable for inclusion.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 05:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
 
Netscott also posted (I believe to Tony's Talk page) that we should have an official WP policy against articles on subjects that criticize Wikipedia. I don't think I should be banned for anything. Look at the replies to WP:WEB on my post. Compliments, civil discussion. "Good job on the PRODS". Hipocrite and Netscott are e-stalking my activities I think, given I stood up against them in good faith. ED is gone from WP. They can come back when they eventually get more notable, and when they do should be welcomed back the same as any other "notable" subject. I prod'd articles that are lacking. Would it be not disruptive if I did "one"? Or is seven too much? If I find 5,492 articles merit deletion per policy, am I not allowed to PROD? If I find (somehow) 15000 or 100000, should they not go because it's a big number? I don't understand this. I never wandered into any of this admin stuff before. I edited my cheerful little projects, and while digging around for the one baby project I started, I found Habbo Hotels mess. That led to this. If I get banned, ban. I'll appeal to ArbCom if I have to. This is absurd. Thanks, I'm done and am unwatching this page now. Apparently only people popular in the right cliques can "be bold". [[User:Rootology|rootology]] 06:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
*Leaving aside for a moment the evidence of disruption, nominating those articles is, on the whole, uncontentious: none of them appear to have reliable secondary sources, and most can easily be dealt with in a single sentence in some other article. MONGO is right - if the only source is the site itself we really can't cover it per policy. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 12:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== AOL Vandal Fun (again) ==
 
The AOL ceiling cat vandal is back, this time with <nowiki>[[Image:Michael-Jackson-With-Kids.jpg]]</nowiki>. We've been reverting him like crazy for the last 20 minutes, but the ip's keep changing. I know a lot of you have dealt with this on a routine basis...any ideas? I'm about to call it a night, and I've got nothing. I'm not sure a block would really help. [[User:Alphachimp|<font color="DarkSlateGray">'''Alphachimp'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alphachimp|'''<font color="Black">talk</font>''']]</sup> 06:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
: Hmph. Wasn't there supposed to be a fix for the AOL proxy issue a while ago? [[User:Zetawoof|Zetawoof]]<sup>([[User_talk:Zetawoof|&zeta;]])</sup> 22:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== Copy-paste move redirect vandalism ==
 
{{vandal|Comanche cph}} made [[Ragnarök]] a redirect to [[Ragnarok]] and then proceeded to copy-paste the content of [[Ragnarök]] over to [[Ragnarok]]. I have reverted these edits, but I am not sure as to how long they will stay as such. [[User:Ryulong|Ryūlóng]] 08:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Don't call it vandalism? Do you use more user names since you come from no where and call it vandalism?
 
[[Ragnarok]] is the English word, and this a English wikipedia right?
[[Ragnarök]] is not the old Norse word. But the Icelandic.
Look at how the article [[Midgard]] looks like. On that way this article should be. Or do you also think that we should change that article to "Miðgarðr"
 
The letter "ö" is not in the English alphabet. --Comanche cph 10:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:The correct approach is to move the article from one name to the other. Copy-pasting it destroys the history (essentially, it makes it look like you wrote the entire current article by yourself in one sitting.) If the move can not be made because something already exists at the old name and the system will not permit the move, you should list is at [[Wikipedia:Requested page moves]] for an admin to do it properly. If the move is contested, you should have a discussion first on both talk pages. [[User:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 10:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::Just because the letter "ö" is not in the English alphabet does not mean the article should be named without the ö. There are plenty of articles on the English Wikipedia about non-English topics that are named with special characters in the title. [[WP:MoS-JA]] will rename articles so they are named with Hepburn Romaji and use characters such as ā, ō, and ū. The move is also contended at [[Talk:Ragnarök]], partly because "Ragnarök" is the [[Old Norse]] spelling of the work, and that spelling is used in the modern [[Swedish language]], as well as on other non-English Wikipedias (off the top of my head, the French Wikipedia uses ö in their spelling of "Ragnarök"). And what does the "Do you use more user names since you come from no where and call it vandalism?" accusation mean? [[User:Ryulong|Ryūlóng]] 21:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== {{ipvandal|4.243.215.217}} abusing {{tl|unblock}} ==
 
{{user|4.243.215.217}} is abusing {{tl|unblock}} on [[User talk:4.243.215.217]]. An admin told him to wait out the block, and he readded {{tl|unblock}} with the reason: 'I don't wanna!'
 
He was blocked for engaging in personal attacks on his talk page. Due to this and the abuse of {{tl|unblock}}, I seek protection of his talk page. [[User:Computerjoe|Computerjoe]][[User talk:Computerjoe|<span style="color:red">'s talk</span>]] 10:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
 
==[[User:Hopiakuta]]==
{{user5|Hopiakuta}} is adding a long, incomprehensible rant at various places, for instance at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]], [[User talk:Jimbo Wales]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability]], claiming some article of his on racism has been deleted. (If the article was anything like his other writings, I'm not surprised.) I fail to see the encyclopedic usefulness of his/her contributions. Seems like a person who will very soon "[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|exhaust the community's patience]]". [[User:Tupsharru|Tupsharru]] 11:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:So far as I can tell, he was an IP editor when "my page but you deleted" happened. Under this account name, he has done nothing but talk pages and project talk pages, and in each of these cases has had something awfully Zen to say, in poetic form. He's quite a newbie to computers, and I assume his handicaps are causing the short lines, etc. So far, though, he seems exasperating, but I can't see where he has crossed a line yet. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 12:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::Just for information, he appears to be <span class="plainlinks">[[User:71.102.31.67|71.102.31.67]] ([[User talk:71.102.31.67|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/71.102.31.67|contribs]] • <font color="002bb8">[{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=move&user={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:71.102.31.67}}}}}} page moves]</font> • [[Special:Blockip/{{ucfirst:71.102.31.67}}|block user]] • <font color="002bb8">[{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=block&page=User:{{urlencode:71.102.31.67}}}} block log]</font>)</span> --[[User:Lo2u|Lo2u]] <sup>([[User talk:Lo2u|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lo2u|C]])</sup> 13:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::He seems to have been originally upset by an image which was at [[Wikipedia:Long term abuse/The Doppleganger]], which was quickly removed when the issue was brought up. In response to this he created [[Wikipedia:Racism]], attempting to outline the incident (somewhat incoherently), and seemed to be upset that a project of this sort did not already exist, implying that no one on Wikipedia cared about issues regarding to racism etc. (which I personally found somewhat insulting, but whatev.) I tried to inform him of both the two projects noted above, at which point he proceeded to copy and paste his grievances in multiple places, in a format which is very difficult to understand or read (perhaps because of disabilities). As Geogre says, frustrating, but Good faith nevertheless. [[User:Makemi|Mak]] <font color="green">[[User_talk:Makemi|(talk)]]</font> 17:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== Robertsteadman, a.k.a. Robsteadman ==
 
Some of you will remember the case of {{Userlinks|Robsteadman}} who engaged in lots of edit warring and abuse, and who used sockpuppets {{Userlinks|Robeaston99}} and {{Userlinks|Vhjh}} for votestacking, whose behaviour was generally rather hysterical, and who used to write things about "shallow and twisted" admins, "the 'christian' cabal" (lower case c and quotation marks to make the point that Christians don't exist, just as he uses lower case j and quotation marks for "jesus"), who constantly called other editors vandals and called for them to be banned, who accused an atheist admin of being part of the "christian" cabal when he protected a page, who used the sockpuppet {{Userlinks|Yummy mummy}} to get an extra oppose vote at Deskana's RfA, who was finally blocked indefinitely for trolling and abuse, and who then made legal threats by e-mail because of the sockpuppeting accusations.
 
He returned a few weeks later as {{Userlinks|Robertsteadman}}, was originally blocked again after refusing to say if he was the same person, and was then unblocked to give him another chance, and was put on probation.
 
A new user, Neuropean, who is very likely a reincarnation of {{User|Count Of The Saxon Shore}}, with whom Rob(ert) was often in dispute, nominated Rob's article [[Anne Frank's cats]] for deletion. The article survived the nomination, but it was certainly not an inappropriate nomination, since several people voted to deleted as unencyclopaedic. However, it always looks bad for a new user to start with an AfD nomination. (Since Count Of the Saxon Shore was not a banned user, he had every right to start with a new identity if he so chose.) Robert then started on a clear vendetta against this user, filing two RFCUs (one on Neuropean himself, and one on an IP), both of which were rejected by Mackensen with a {{tl|Fishing}} template. He then made ''numerous'' posts to [[WP:RFI]] about this user, calling him a vandal, a sockpuppet, and a stalker. He became heavily involved in wiki-stalking Neuropean, showing up at articles the latter had created or recently edited. By the way, it's obvious that he has been making a habit of editing articles that I have just edited as well, and Deskana and Frelke have noticed that he was doing it with them also.
 
This caused some distress to Neuropean, and he asked Rob on several occasions to stop. Rob continued wiki-stalking, and continued to accuse him of being a vandal, a sockpuppet, and a stalker.
 
I feel I should have acted sooner. By no means do I wish to imply that Neuropean was blameless, but after the stormy beginning, he showed that he wanted to move on, and made a few compromise offers to Robert. I do not think he will be back. He said he was suffering from depression. Nevertheless, I would like to ensure that this cannot happen again. We were too slow in putting a stop to it. I'm bringing this here for review, because I would like some support in making it clear that wiki-stalking and hurling round of unsubstantiated accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry are not going to be tolerated, particularly from an indefinitely-blocked user who has been unblocked on probation.
 
I don't want to clog up the admin noticeboard, so I've created a subpage with more information [[User:Musical Linguist/Robertsteadman|here]]. I know it can be a bit of a bore to start looking through a case that you don't have any experience of, but I'd very much appreciate some reaction. And by the way, although I and Gator1 deleted Rob's user and talk pages at his request when he left, I have undeleted the earlier versions, so as to be able to provide evidence of his behaviour. Thanks. [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<b><font size="3">♫</font></b>]] 16:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
: So allowed back under a kind of probation, he has harassed another editor to the point of driving him off. I move for a community ban. If this doesn't happen for any reason we can try arbitration. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 16:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::Ann has missed some vital information out about Neuropean being an internet stalker from another site who had followed me here, has used several different accounts to harrass me. Count of the Saxon Shore (Crusading Composer) etc. may not have been a banned user but should have been. The stalking, as Ann well knows, went beynd WP and the TES forum into real life - she was informed of all this. I do not deel I wiki-stalked him - I edited some articles he had edited once I looked into his actions. If I did something wrong I apologise. [[user: Syrthiss]] is well aware of all this and, from emails I have received, agrees that Neuropean was a trouble maker and agrees that evidence I have supplied him with shows a definite link to an internet troll and stalker from another web site. I think it is a great shame that Ann, knowing all of this, and being someone with whom I have had major disagreements with is now using this as a trump card to win an old battle over the Jesus article. Her entry here is truly the ultimate in bad faith edits. [[User:Robertsteadman|Robertsteadman]] 17:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Sorry forgot to say, despite qwhat Ann says, and what WP turned up, I have not used any sockpuppets - that is false. At elast one has now told me who they are and it was a student of mine. [[User:Robertsteadman|Robertsteadman]] 17:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Given that ''six'' checkuser admins said that there was absolutely no doubt of sockpuppetry, and given that they knew you work in a school, there must have been ''much'' more to it than that, even though they never give details of what they find as they don't want to teach editors to get better at sockpuppeting. [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<b><font size="3">♫</font></b>]] 18:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Musical_Linguist#Neuropean This] makes VERY interesting reading - perticularly the "sudden" reappearance of Count of the Saxon Shore.... how very odd. [[User:Robertsteadman|Robertsteadman]] 17:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:I've already agreed that Neuropean is probably Count Of The Saxon Shore, so I don't think there's anything odd about him reappearing after I had said that I had undeleted your talk page. He knows that there's some nasty stuff that he wrote on that talk page, and so he logged on as COTSS to protest against the undeletion. That's not a violation of policy, he wasn't taking extra reverts or votes, and I doubt if he'll be back. [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<b><font size="3">♫</font></b>]] 18:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Last time I checked, indefinatly blocked users weren't allowed to use sockpuppets to come back. RfCU, anyone? --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 18:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::There was an RfCU, which showed that Robsteadman and Robertsteadman were the same. See [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Robsteadman|here]]. It lists his other sockpuppets too, with the exception of Yummy mummy, but the checkuser for that is reported [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Deskana&diff=49980539&oldid=49977581 here]. His return was discussed [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive101#The_return_of_Robsteadman.3F|here]], and he was unblocked ''on probation'' according to conditions set [[User:Syrthiss/Robertsteadman|here]]. I agreed to allow him back, but I think it's a bit much that an indefinitely-blocked user who returns without permission and is then kindly permitted to resume activity keeps hurling the word "sockpuppet" at another editor who (if it really was Count Of The Saxon Shore) was ''not'' indefinitely blocked, and was therefore perfectly permitted to return, and was also free to start afresh with a new identity, and was not using the newly-registered account to get extra votes or reverts. [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<b><font size="3">♫</font></b>]] 19:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:I've been thinking and indefinite block is in order for some time now... --[[User:Deskana|Lord Deskana]] ([[User talk:Deskana|talk]]) 18:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::Please do. I'm astonished that Neuropean's self-control and lack of hostility still made him susceptible to such bullying behaviour. If this discussion stays around for a couple of weeks and is then forgotten about and RobertSteadman continues to edit as normal it sets a very bad precedent. --[[User:Lo2u|Lo2u]] <sup>([[User talk:Lo2u|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lo2u|C]])</sup> 19:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Not an admin, but I'd like to voice support for an indefinite block. -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 20:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:I've gone ahead and indefinatly blocked him as a sockpuppet of an indefinatly blocked user. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 21:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::I don't think it was quite right to make the official reason sockpuppet of banned user, since he had been unblocked and allowed back on parole. However, I do support the block on the grounds that his indefinite block was lifted on condition that he behave himself, and that he resumed his abusive behaviour. It's not even a question of blocking him for his recent behaviour, bad though it was: it's simply that he was already indefinitely blocked and when he was given another chance, he started upsetting other editors, bullying and wiki-stalking. I honestly don't think he's able to change. [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<b><font size="3">♫</font></b>]] 21:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::Can someone explain exactly what happens with an indefinite block. Can it it be lifted by a different editor without notice. Its not quite permanent is it ? [[User:Frelke|Frelke]] 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::It's technically possible for any admin to unblock an editor blocked by another admin. It should not be done without thoroughly discussing it in advance, either with the blockin admin, or, if he's not available, here at AN/I. Unfortunately, some admins do unblock without discussion, and sometimes original blockers reblock, leading to a wheel war. Let's hope that any further action will be discussed in full here before any overturning of the block is considered. [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<b><font size="3">♫</font></b>]] 21:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
I support an indefinite block. I have seen his behaviour on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunder Bay Northern Hawks (2nd nomination)]], then his wiki-stalking members of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey|WikiProject Ice Hockey]] that disagreed have with him. -- [[User:JamesTeterenko|JamesTeterenko]]
 
== Personal attacks against and possible harassment of [[User:Wzhao553]] ==
 
[[User:Wzhao553|Wzhao553]] has notified me that [[User:Logoi|Logoi]], with whom he is in a long-term dispute over the [[Asian fetish]] article, has been posting Wzhao553's personal information on his talk page ([[User talk:Logoi]]). As far as I could tell, most of this has to do with the fact that Logoi revealed the ___location of Wzhao's blog. [[User:Dark Tichondrias|Dark Tichondrias]] mentioned the blog in a separate post on Logoi's talk page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALogoi&diff=61326518&oldid=61287997] In addition, Logoi was also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALogoi&diff=61489394&oldid=61485101 making personal attacks] against Wzhao and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Logoi&diff=next&oldid=61489394 then erasing them], so that they did remain in the page history. Is it appropriate, in this case, where Wzhao is claiming that Logoi is [[Wikipedia:Harassment|harassing him]], to edit out comments with the link to the blog? And/or should Logoi's talk page be refactored and protected? --[[User:Idont Havaname|Idont Havaname]] ([[User talk:Idont Havaname|Talk]]) 17:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== [[User:Istartfires]] ==
 
This user has in the last few minutes done a long series of bot-like edits, wikilinking one word on a many pages. Many of these are very dubious--[[ceded]], [[high]], etc., links to disambig pages or redirects. It's not vandalism, but I don't know how to communicate with him about this clearly. I would like him to slow down and do what he's doing more carefully, since a lot of these will end up being reverted if he keeps going as is. Can someone look at his contribs please? Thanks. <b><span style="color: #f33">&middot;[[User talk:Rodii|<span style="color: #669">&nbsp;rodii&nbsp;</span>]]&middot;</span></b> 18:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:Reverted seeming random Wikilinks and asked for a reason (no response yet); another admin blocked 24h. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> ([[User:RadioKirk|u]]|[[User talk:RadioKirk|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/RadioKirk|c]])</small></tt> 20:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== {{la|2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict}} ==
 
This article is getting a high number of revert's so I think it's urgent, and necessary to bring here. Requesting '''Semi Protection''' due to large amount of vandalism. [[User:Hello32020|Hello32020]] 19:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Large revert war going on
[[User:Hello32020|Hello32020]] 20:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Nevermind it was just protected [[User:Hello32020|Hello32020]] 20:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
: For future reference [[WP:RFPP]] is the appropriate place for page protection requests. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 21:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== [[User talk:VelairWight]] ==
 
This user talk page has been vandalized a few times in the last couple of days by what appear to be sockpuppets of {{vandal|Dorsoduro}}, who was indefinitely blocked for vandalizing this same user's user page. The vandalizing accounts are {{vandal|The return of Dorsoduro}}, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VelairWight&diff=64848392&oldid=64717885], and {{vandal|Gyt}}, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VelairWight&diff=65411057&oldid=65064644]. There is also a possibly related IP edit, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VelairWight&diff=65010767&oldid=64960527]. Since these accounts are likely sockpuppets and their only edits were to vandalize this user's page, they should be blocked, and if vandalism from their IP or IP range continues, then that should be blocked for a little while. —[[User:Centrx|Centrx]]→[[User talk:Centrx|''talk'']]&nbsp;&bull; 20:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked both reg users, the IP's block has expired&mdash;no activity since, but the user should clearly be watched based on the [[Special:Contributions/82.127.112.78|contribs]]. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> ([[User:RadioKirk|u]]|[[User talk:RadioKirk|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/RadioKirk|c]])</small></tt> 20:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
=={{vandal|Elkman}}==
Can someone take a look at his recent contributions? They seem like calculated disruption of the sort I am often accused of. He made [[Pink fuzzy bunnies]] a few days ago with what's now at [[Highway 33 (Minnesota)]] - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Station_Attendant&diff=65155360&oldid=65153449] for his rationale. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]]) 21:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
: I'll admit that [[Pink fuzzy bunnies]] was a mistake borne out of frustration of this situation. As for the rest... well, let's just say that I'm off the Minnesota State Highways project. I'm not sure why I ever got involved in the highways project in the first place.
: Basically, since I've created and/or modified a number of articles under the wrong title ("Minnesota State Highway (x)" instead of "State Highway x (Minnesota)"), that means ''I did something wrong''. That, in itself, is a blockable offense. So I won't argue about the blocks being applied. Indeed, since I made a number of mistakes editing [[List of Registered Historic Places in Minnesota]] this afternoon, and since I wasted time and server space using AWB, I suppose it's going to happen anyway. --{{vandal|Elkman}} 22:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC) (Note the short signature format)
::Ah, you have not been blocked by anyone. Take a deep breath and calm down. :) [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 23:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Note: it was Elkman who added the {{tl|vandal}} to the section title. I do not believe him to be a vandal. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]]) 22:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
==[[User:Fecil]]==
This user has vandalized [[Seduction]] in the same way that it has been recently. At the very least, it seems like the article should be locked, but beyond that, I don't know how to get this activity to stop. [[User:Andrewski|Andrewski]] 21:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== {{User|Essjay}} block of {{User|CovenantD}} ==
 
*<small>Moved from [[WP:AN]]. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] <small>[[User talk:Steve block|Talk]]</small> 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)</small>
 
Regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&curid=564696&diff=65420713&oldid=65419282#What_to_do_if_I_think_an_admin_stepped_over_the_line.3F this issue], I wonder if a another admin could take a look. I think the admin here chose a block way before necessary, to what otherwise appears to be a good user. Summary: yes, I think the user was making negative comments, but I don't think such an immediate block was called for. Thanks for your time. --<span style="background: #CCEECC;">[[User:Kickstart70|Kickstart70]]</span>-<span style="background: #CCCCEE;">[[User talk:Kickstart70|T]]</span>-<span style="background: #EECCEE;">[[Special:Contributions/Kickstart70|C]]</span> 19:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:I've already asked Essjay on his talk page to clarify this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=prev&oldid=65415883], as I feel it is questionable. The comments by which led to the block of [[User:CovenantD]] are these: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Samuel_Luo&diff=prev&oldid=65191174], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Samuel_Luo&diff=prev&oldid=65196448], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Samuel_Luo&diff=prev&oldid=65257141].
 
:Essjay justified his block on the grounds of disruption. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Samuel_Luo&diff=65257711&oldid=65257141]., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CovenantD&diff=65257439&oldid=65218171] I find this highly questionable. I'm concerned that blocking was taken before any other form of dispute resolution. Blocks should be preventantive, not punitive, and as I commented to Essjay, this smacks of punishment to me. Looking at the block log [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:CovenantD], Essjay describes the disruption as being: "incivility and borderline personal attacks at RFCU". Now borderline personal attacks are no basis to justify a block, and nor is incivility. [[WP:BLOCK]] is clear on what constitutes disruption:
<blockquote>Sysops may block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia, or pose any kind of threat to it. Such disruption may include (but is not limited to) changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, harassment, excessive personal attacks, and inserting material that may be defamatory. '''Users will normally be warned before they are blocked''' <small>My emphasis</small>.</blockquote>
:I think this is a clear case of a badly issued block. Given the number of positions Essjay holds on Wikipedia, I would hope there are other issues behind this block. Otherwise, to me, it creates suitability issues for some of them. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] <small>[[User talk:Steve block|Talk]]</small> 21:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
I think it fair to ask Essjay to explain his block here before speculating further. We need to be clear, though, that the comments CovenantD made on the RFCU page were highly, highly insulting and completely inappropriate. I don't know where he got the idea that such behavior could ever be acceptable. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 22:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:It's fair to say that CovenantD lost his temper and said some inappropriate things in his frustration. It's also clear that CovenantD was being extremely impatient with RfCU, which has always been a slow process, but as he noted it was his first RfCU and he may not have realized how long they take. I think these are mitigating factors that should be considered. But I don't see what's "highly insulting" about the remarks, nor do I understand the "abuse" you cited in your initial decision to reject. I'm curious to know what you were referring to. [[User:Kasreyn|Kasreyn]] 23:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:I don't know if you are reading different comments than I, or reading them in a different light, but while I agree they weren't helpful and were pretty negative, I don't see anything "highly, highly insulting" in any way. --<span style="background: #CCEECC;">[[User:Kickstart70|Kickstart70]]</span>-<span style="background: #CCCCEE;">[[User talk:Kickstart70|T]]</span>-<span style="background: #EECCEE;">[[Special:Contributions/Kickstart70|C]]</span> 23:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not convinced of that at all, no. The first comment I link to above is an expression of frustration, after all, Wikipedia is not meant to be a bureaucracy and here is someone running into a bureaucratic log-jam. I don't think anyone is being insulted other than the process. The user showed good faith in asking how long it would take, and having received no reply over 24 hours later frusratingly quesried no response. The rest of his comments seem reasonable considering the replies given. I think your response there is just as inflammatory, to be perfectly honest. I can't see how you were personally abused. Nowhere on the page does it indicate length of delay in getting a response. The first comment is not a personal attack in any shape or form, I can accept a case being made that it is incivil, but it's not cut and dried. The other comments are attempts at fixing a perceived flaw in the system. I think there's demonstrable good faith in Covenant's prior edits, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Samuel_Luo&diff=prev&oldid=64978667], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Samuel_Luo&diff=prev&oldid=64795298], so I think respondents should have assumed good faith, and I don't think they have. I think this situation was escalated by the participants a lot further than necessary, and I think in disregard for user conduct policies. Let's be clear, no-one's conduct is acceptable after CovenantD expressed frustration, but nothing that needed blocks to be issued for. The phrase "storm in a tea cup" springs to mind. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] <small>[[User talk:Steve block|Talk]]</small> 23:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::His remarks go far, far beyond normal frustration, and his insinuations were maddening. Checkusering is extremely stressful work, and Essjay's right about the repeated abuse we experience carrying out our task (the nasty emails, the death threats, the tirades, the incivility, the refusal to believe us when we identify sockpuppets, the conversations with Willy on Wheels). This is a question of customer service. He asked for something; fine. He gave no indication that the request was pressing&ndash;if it was an emergency one of us could have been directly notified. He then began making a series of personal attacks, each worse than the last. Finally, I have some time and I wander over the Checkuser page. This is what I find. It's always nice to know that the hours upon hours of sacrifice are appreciated. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 23:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Please, asking seriously, give us direct links to the 'personal attacks'. I, for one, am not seeing anything that qualifies under any reasonable definition. Further, he should not suffer for the actions of others. --<span style="background: #CCEECC;">[[User:Kickstart70|Kickstart70]]</span>-<span style="background: #CCCCEE;">[[User talk:Kickstart70|T]]</span>-<span style="background: #EECCEE;">[[Special:Contributions/Kickstart70|C]]</span> 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::I'll also note that Checkuser is restricted because of its sensitive nature and is a measure of last resort. The clerks explained politely and responded negatively. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 23:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Nope, I don't see that they do go beyond normal frustration at all. Given your answer it appears you had the wrong frame of mind when judging his comments. The user had already noted he was new to the process, and was suggesting reasonable ways to fix the process based on having no understanding of the process. He did give an indication that the request was pressing, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Samuel_Luo&diff=prev&oldid=64978667]. I'd also note you have no idea whether CovenantD was undergoing stress caused by his mediation of the dispute at the page indicated. All of us are volunteers. You criticise CovenantD for his frustration, yet seem oblivious to your own frustration and posting based on that. Your actions are equatable to CovenantD's. DOes this mean I should block you for 24 hours? I still can see no personal insult to you personally. That you took comments personally is one thing; that they were meant personally is another. I don't think you have considered the possibility that any attack was meant personally, but rather at the system which appeared to the user to be broken. If no-one watches the page for 24 hours, is it not reasonable to ask if we can have more checkuser enabled editors? Especially if you are told there are only 2 active in the 14. That seems like a flawed process to me. We all make hours and hours of sacrifice. I'm afraid to me your contention that a series of personal attacks were made is not born out by the edits in question. I accept the clerks responses were perfectly polite. I can't see that CovenantD's response was impolite, and I can't see how you and Essjay justify your responses, nor Essjay his block. I'm also concerned by the flaws this dispute throws up. Should checkuser requests be judged on the merits of the case? If not, there is a worrying precedent set here. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] <small>[[User talk:Steve block|Talk]]</small> 23:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:I think I'd worry about that sort of abuse causing our (volunteer) checkusers to "take a break" and cause other checkuser requests to lag, just because one person was impatient. Blocked or not, if CovenantD was that worked up over something on Wikipedia, it's about time to go do something non-Wikipedia for a bit. I'd suggest the new Pirates movie. *nod* Very good. Depp's a hottie. Ayep. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu ([[User:Kylu|u]]|[[User talk:Kylu|t]]) </font></i></b> 23:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::I can't quite balance one volunteer's frustrations higher than another volunteer's. They all impact upon Wikipedia. If that's how the checkuser system operates, I'd question considering another model. But CovenantD tried that and was blocked. He did do something else for 30 hours. I don't know. I remember voting in Essjay's RFA. I just can't see where Essjay got the idea these were blockable comments from. I can't see that no-one can accept some fault here or extend some understanding and good faith. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] <small>[[User talk:Steve block|Talk]]</small> 23:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::I hadn't commented on the block at all, and I don't plan to. :) I'd like to see the block pass, then all sides forgive and forget. While overhauling the current system might be good, I do beleive that there are regular proposals on how to do so and none that I know of have passed. As far as volunteer status goes, imho the reason Essjay has all those nifty +flags is because he's trusted by the community to do the right thing: If a resource (such as active checkusers) is endangered, the community should either try to create more of the resource and/or protect the resource they currently have. Verbally assaulting the resources simply causes an already endangered resource in the persona of active checkusers to potentially vanish. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu ([[User:Kylu|u]]|[[User talk:Kylu|t]]) </font></i></b> 00:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::::Honestly, I don't see how one sockpuppet voting in a straw poll can make all that much difference to an article. Even so, I made a very polite response to CovenantD's nagging and suggested an alternate means for resolving the article dispute he obviously feels strongly about. His response was to dump on the checkusers (as a whole, as I read it). To paraphrase Essjay, people forget that nearly everybody working on wikipedia is a volunteer. Perhaps some members of the Arbitration committee should work on the RFCU page instead of the 28 outstanding cases they have right now. Or Brion V could drop his development work on the wikimedia software to help CovenantD win some content dispute. Last week, Essjay identified and reported a long-time apparently "good" editor who had a long-term record of creating vandal sockpuppet accounts, and the community reaction was a big yawn and a week long block. This week Jayjg's integrity has been publicly questioned in at least two places by an ''administrator'' he caught using a sockpuppet to evade a block for 3RR, and Mackensen has been harranged on his talk page over at least three declined requests before CovenantD came along. You're lucky to have checkusers at all, and you may find yourselves looking back on the halcyon days when a checkuser request took ''only'' 2 days to be answered. [[User:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 00:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::Absolutely, Thatcher131. Part of the problem with checkuser is the difficulty in the process that's assigned to it. ''Technically'', I could do the actual checkuser lookup, but ''socially'' I wouldn't touch it with a fifty foot pole manipulated by a radio-controlled robotic arm. Look at the Socafan (or whatever his name was) incident where he griped about Essjay revealing the ''country'' in which he resided. Actually, look at every five or so RFCU requests since the page began: there's no shortage of gripes and abuses heaped upon those who we're supposed to be trusting with this sensitive information. Now, if he took all the usernames that edited [[Tiannamen Square]] and checkuser'd them and reported them to the PRC, I could see that being an issue. If I had someone request that I write an article on my talkpage, I'd consider it. If they demanded such and were nasty about it, I'd tell them to go bugger off in so many words. I think the exact same thing happened here, just with different privelege levels involved. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu ([[User:Kylu|u]]|[[User talk:Kylu|t]]) </font></i></b> 00:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::::On what Thatcher has said, it used to take a lot longer, and the page was considerably less nice than it is right now. Also, the diffs presented are not entirely perfect, as shortly after making a comment, ConvenantD changed the wording from "Time to get more people." to "Time to replace some people.". Basically a call to fire some checkusers and get new ones because they aren't responding '''instantly''' to a request. There's no timeframe listed there, insted a resort to attacking the a volunteer process to use a sensitive tool. [[User:Kevin Breitenstein|Kevin_b_er]] 01:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Actually, I read it as "replacing the people who aren't actually doing any checkusering", but I guess I assume good faith from an otherwise good editor. I do note that the people claiming CovenantD was making personal insults have not responded to requests to specifically point out those personal attacks...and that was the reasoning behind him being blocked anyway, wasn't it? --<span style="background: #CCEECC;">[[User:Kickstart70|Kickstart70]]</span>-<span style="background: #CCCCEE;">[[User talk:Kickstart70|T]]</span>-<span style="background: #EECCEE;">[[Special:Contributions/Kickstart70|C]]</span> 04:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
I'm really moved to wonder about the motivations of those who have stirred this up so much; hundreds of similar blocks are made each day, and none ges so much as a word, much less this sort of treatment. I'm inclined to wonder if [[User_talk:CovenantD#I_would_suggest_you_formally_take_the_above_to_ArbCom]] doesn't have a lot to do with it. At any rate, the community shall have what they desire: I'm joining the other 13 who don't go near RfCU, and I've encouraged Mackensen to do likewise; the fact that nobody could be bothered to think "Hmm, this might leave us with nobody willing to do this" indicates to me that the community really doesn't care if RfCU has 1000 backlogged cases. I will, of course, continue to be available for requests from the Arbitration Committee and the Foundation Office, as are the other 13; to assume that not working on RfCU = not running any checks is a grand fallacy. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Essjay'''</font>]] [[User talk:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">(<small>Talk</small>)</font>]]</span> 05:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
I've looked over this situation and while on first glance I can see why some people don't see it as a justified block. However, I also know (as a fellow CheckUser) how grindingly difficult that job is. I used to be the only person working RFCU, and I couldn't keep it up for long because it's timeconsuming and totally thankless. People who put out with an attitude that they're entitled to whatever they want right away are going to find that that's not the way things work. CovenantD failed to show respect for the very difficult job that Essjay and Mackensen are doing. The rude attitude with which he expressed himself was out of line, especially for someone serving as a mediator. Frankly, he needed a quick smack in the ass to get him to realize he was out of line. I don't know if 24 hours was the appropriate time, but I suspect Essjay would have shortened the block if an apology had been forthcoming.
 
Long and the short of it, treat your checkusers nice; there aren't many of them and they work really hard for you. Be mean to them at your own peril. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 05:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
==[[User:TJ Spyke]]==
Could someone kindly tell TJ Spyke that calling my good-faith edits "trolling", is against [[WP:NPA]]. I tried nicely to tell him, but he keep reverting my edits with edit summaries of "Lousy trolls" and "STOP CHANGING THAT YOU TROLLS". Although I don't agree with his edit summaries, I also don't agree with his edits either because my edits have a source, which I provide, but he persistantly remove them saying I'm trolling which I'm not. [[User:209.214.141.10|209.214.141.10]] 22:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Not the first time he's done this, and user is a bit of a revert warrior besides. Warned. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 22:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks, he also said he was sorry if he offended me, which I accept if that was apology. [[User:209.214.141.10|209.214.141.10]] 22:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
==Taylor Iosefo==
Could somebody with the proper authority remove the history of this attack page? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
And the same thing at Peter MCcoy, please? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:[[Taylor Iosefo]] & [[Peter MCcoy]] 's deleted histories appear to contain no information suitable for [[WP:OVER|oversight]] application. The pages are already deleted and not available to non-admins. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu ([[User:Kylu|u]]|[[User talk:Kylu|t]]) </font></i></b> 01:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== Link spam and possible threat ==
 
While I am watching [[Xiaolin Showdown]], this edit popped up: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xiaolin_Showdown&diff=65448384&oldid=65344446]. While the user only put up a link to a Xiaolin Showdown fan RPG while also separating the notable TV.com from the Kids WB and Wizards of the Coast sites, his message is particularly poignant. I think he's just a link spammer, trying to advertise the RPG that he's a part of. While it is an AOL IP, something should be done. [[User:Ryulong|Ryūlóng]] 00:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:AOL IP, 15 minute block, Please drive through to the next window. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu ([[User:Kylu|u]]|[[User talk:Kylu|t]]) </font></i></b> 01:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== [[Lebanon]] ==
Someone want to take a look at this page? Seems there is, pardon the expression, a war breaking out. [[User:Fan-1967|Fan-1967]] 01:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:Page sprotected by [[User:Mark]]. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu ([[User:Kylu|u]]|[[User talk:Kylu|t]]) </font></i></b> 01:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
==[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] trying to make [[WP:CFR|CFR]] a vote==
Can someone look at and possibly revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cfr2&diff=prev&oldid=65460387], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cfm2&diff=prev&oldid=65460331] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cfd2&diff=prev&oldid=65460255]? See also [[Template talk:Cfd2]]. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]]) 01:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:CFR might not ''officially'' be a vote, but it certainly is how discussion proceeds ''[[de facto]]'', and changing the templates or page name won't change that any time soon. [[User:Circeus|Circeus]]
::We shouldn't be encouraging this though. After I substed the template I had to go back and edit out the bolded merge. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]]) 01:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Somebody apparently hasn't read the instructions. We have 3 templates, Delete is cfd, Merge is cfm, and Rename is cfr (plus cfr-speedy). Each logs its name. Not particularly difficult for those that read and follow instructions. This is not new, it's just SPUI wiki-stalking my contributions.
::--[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 01:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::More like me listing something on CFD, finding an extra '''merge''' that I didn't want, and removing it. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]]) 01:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Ok, what is this? Less than 10 people talking about changing CFD, now its not a deletion debate anymore, but insted a discussion with voting? Shouldn't need to have the forced "<nowiki>* '''Delete'''</nowiki>" at the start of any XfD template used to start a discussion. [[User:Kevin Breitenstein|Kevin_b_er]] 01:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:CfD/CfM/CfR has always been a discussion with voting, and the templates are there for the folks that can read and follow instructions. The rest of you are free to make up your own words, which will be fixed to conform to the format the rest of us are using. We have to do that all the time!
 
:As for only 10 people being involved, you were certainly free to join that procedural discussion, too. But things have been this way since long before I began using my well-known mundane name to edit here.
::--[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
<s>I'm pleasantly surprised that William has apparently agreed to keep this out.</s> --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]]) 01:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Never mind - he's added it to the other templates.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cfr&diff=prev&oldid=65477352][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cfm&diff=prev&oldid=65477236][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cfd&diff=prev&oldid=65477151] Better, as it's easy to remove, but still sets a bad example. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]]) 02:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:[[WP:POINT]] nominations are speedily closed.
::--[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Furthurmore, why can I find '''no mention''' of this stuff in the history of the village pump on policy or proposals? Why is CFD now a vote with forced selections of wether it should be merged/deleted rather than need arrising through discussion like the rest of the deletion discussions? [[User:Kevin Breitenstein|Kevin_b_er]] 02:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:When was it otherwise? What other deletion discussion(s)? The same formatting appears at RfD and TfD.
::--[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::Crap. That's a mess. It needs fixing. It's generally a bad idea to hold votes. We really prefer consensus, if that's ok with you. :-) [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 02:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Well, Kim, I have 30+ years of experience in consensus-based organizations, including non-profit, political, and technical organizations, and the first technique taught is "let's go around the circle and each person state their position and reasons".
 
:The Cfd process (recently renamed after much effort by us from "for deletion" to "for discussion") has since its first day clearly specified:
:::'''<nowiki>'''</nowiki>''Your vote''<nowiki>''': </nowiki>''Your reason for nominating the category''<nowiki> ~~~~</nowiki>'''
 
:Wikipedia is by no means a consensus-based organization. As cited by an especially obstreperous administrator in another "discussion" trying to tell me what consensus actually means here (quoted):
 
::Wikipedia is not the mundane world. See WP:Consensus and the talk page for the many ways in which "consensus" in Wikipedia has been redefined, sometimes in stark contrast to the common understanding of the term. At times it strikes me as Orwellian doublespeak to describe certain Wikipedia practices as "consensus". But in this case, the "lack of objection" is actually among the least disturbing distortions. It's a sort of consensus by apathy. ..."
 
:I firmly disagree, and have done my best to improve the processes to be better and clearer and easier. This SPUI-style "consensus" by wearing folks out is wrong!
::--[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 03:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Its a deletion discussion, not a 'Separate activities to do to namespace discussion'. TfD and RfD don't have their templates automatically treat it like a vote and put "<nowiki>* '''Do this'''</nowiki>" in the created text. Only 10 people probably saw it because I would hope such a change occurs thourgh larger discussion. [[User:Kevin Breitenstein|Kevin_b_er]] 02:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== Silver and Kreese: Getting Down and Dirty ==
 
As far as I can establish this film is a hoax. There is no independent Google sourcing and it is not in IMDb. The article [[Silver And Kreese - Getting Down and Dirty]] has been prodded for this reason. If you check [[Martin Kove]] you will see that it has been repeatedly added by anons. I cannot remove it any more since I am at my 3RR limit. Can anything be done or must we accept that this article will contain a hoax film? [[User:BlueValour|BlueValour]] 01:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
: Is this a case for sprotection? At least until whether the "Down & Drty" movie is determined to exist. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 02:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
::This is apparently user [[User:Jackman69]], evading his through AOL IPs. he was the creator of teh Movie article and was blocked for his actions at [[Kurt Cobain]], where he keeps removing alternate spellings through the same IPs. I have semi-protected Kove for now. [[User:Circeus|Circeus]] 03:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Thanks for your help, Circeus. [[User:BlueValour|BlueValour]] 03:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== {{user|Shougiku Wine}} ==
 
moved from AN:
 
I'm not sure if I'm reporting this to the correct place, but {{User|Shougiku Wine}} is attempting to AfD {{article|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takeshima Islands}} as part of a POV dispute over whether an article should be named {{article|Takeshima Islands}} or {{article|Dokdo}}. The result of the POV dispute was the creation of a POV fork of the article. --'''[[User:TheFarix|TheFarix]]''' ([[User talk:TheFarix|Talk]]) 22:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Ok, Shougiku Wine has clearly moved into the realm of personal attacks against those who don't agree with him as well as using racial language.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dokdo&diff=prev&oldid=65458970] --'''[[User:TheFarix|TheFarix]]''' ([[User talk:TheFarix|Talk]]) 00:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
::Should be on [[/Incidents]], but I've given 24 hours. [[User:Circeus|Circeus]] 01:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AShougiku_Wine&diff=65491776&oldid=65469821 This] is utterly ridiculous display of personal attacks, and I will not even consider gracing with an answer. I am tempted to lenghten the block though. [[User:Circeus|Circeus]] 04:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
==Removal of Afd Tag==
 
<s>[[User:Rlk89]] removed the afd tag of an ongoing afd [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_references_and_innuendo_in_Rocko%27s_Modern_Life&diff=65444374&oldid=65396324] I placed the afd tag back and asked the user not to remove tags from ongoing afds (as the template asks you not to remove them from ongoing discussions) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_references_and_innuendo_in_Rocko%27s_Modern_Life&diff=65468254&oldid=65455106] and he removed the tag again saying in the edit summary "Conflict is resolved" even though the Afd is ongoing. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_references_and_innuendo_in_Rocko%27s_Modern_Life&diff=65472238&oldid=65468254] I don't want this to turn into an edit war so I ask that an administrator intervene. Thank you.--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 01:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)</s>
 
:Forget it, the situation seems to have been resolved as he self-reverted his edit.--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 02:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
==[[User:Kelly Martin/R]]==
 
I have blocked Kelly Martin for 24 hours for recreating of the above list, which I speedy deleted, as per my clear [[User_talk:Kelly_Martin#WP:NOT|warning]] on her talk page. [[User:El C|El_C]] 02:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:I am extremely concerned that El C chose to block while he was involved in a conflict with Kelly Martin over this issue. In addition to taking a threatening and confrontational tone, I note that he was one of the individuals listed on Kelly's page. Regardless of whether or not it was appropriate for Kelly to keep such a list, it was definitely not El C's place to threaten and block here. I'm tempted to block El C for wheel warring (deleting and blocking while the issue was being discussed further up this page) and immediately unblock Kelly Martin, but I'm aware of the irony that would lace such a course of action.
:I would encourage a ''rapid'' sampling of opinion here and if there is a general agreement Kelly should be unblocked so that she can at least participate in this discussion&mdash;and continue to work on Wikipedia, where she has been bloody useful for the last two years. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::I am pleased to see that El C has reconsidered this block. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 02:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I reject that involvement and charges of wheel warring, and I only reverted myself because of you threats to block me. Now I will let you deal with her disruptive conduct and lists. You are contributing to KM's continued abuse of Wikipedia with these list games. [[User:El C|El_C]] 02:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::Perhaps Kelly would, in her profound wisdom and infinite munificence, be willing to grant a boon to the lowly peons and offer some few words of explanation as to the purpose of the lists?
::(I'll point out that "he was one of the individuals listed on Kelly's page" does not necessarily disqualify El_C from enacting blocks; this goes back to that whole hypothetical "If a user picks a fight with every admin, does that mean nobody can block him?" thing.) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
::They're pretty much just being created to annoy people at this point. Somehow this is seen as perfectly acceptable behavior... yeah it's pretty silly. I guess it's effective trolling, but it's sad how many people are okay with it. Meh. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 02:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::The /R list was a list of random users with random colors assigned to them. There was absolutely no meaning to the list that El C deleted. I created it for one express purpose: to see if El C would jerk his knee and attempt to punish me for creating it. Considering that he previously deleted a harmless redirect and a blank page from my user space, I wasn't too surprised that he did. To an extent, this is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, but if the extremely minor disruption that this causes exposes a wildly irresponsible admin for who he is, I consider it worthwhile. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 02:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::Well, now that you've accomplished that, can we have an end to the lists? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 03:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::::I don't see how you made El C look bad. He (presumably) sought to punish you for disrupting Wikipedia with the creations of these lists. Isn't this, by your own admission, exactly what you did, particularly with this last list? You know people find these lists very annoying and yet you continue to make them. Regardless of the rationale behind these lists, you ought to know better. Maybe you (and others) find them funny, but there are many people who want you to just cut it out and act like the mature admin you should be. I, for one, am one of those people. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' <small>(joturner)</small> 02:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
::::(Edit conflict) What the heck? You create a disruption to goad an administrator into blocking you and then you are shocked when they take you up on the offer? That's kinda like the boy who repeatedly pokes the dog with a stick and is surprised when he gets bit. If any of us poor little users who don't have your clout were to make such a list and refuse to say what it is for, and continually recreate it when asked not to, I seriously doubt anyone would bend over backwards to defend us. [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 02:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::So, basically, Kelly recreated the list in order to [[WP:POINT|disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point]]. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<font color="orange">'''juice'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 03:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Interesting lists. I wonder if they're one of those classic "secret list" social experiments. [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 02:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC) <small>''(And once again, I'm not on them. Argh, no respect these days)''</small>
:Seriously! What does a guy have to do to get on a secret list these days, anyway? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 02:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:: Be careful for what you ask. Sometimes obscurity is a very enviable state. ;-) -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 03:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Kelly Martin is seeking conflict with these lists, and when admins such as myself issue and enforce warnings on these, admins such as TenofallTrades threaten to wheel war and block me, whilst choosing inaction on the KM front. It looks bad. [[User:El C|El_C]] 02:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Just to be clear, I would have stood my ground (I maintain this was a legitimate WP:NOT/POINT block/deletion - no wheel warrning whatsoever) had it not been for TenofallTrades warning. Unlike some, I have work to do on the namespace. There's war in the old country. [[User:El C|El_C]] 03:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Kelly more and more reminds me of [[Ann Coulter]]. :) Seriously, her behaviour is clearly silly, but I guess we all need to drop this. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 03:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Putting a smiley after a personal attack doesn't make it any less of one. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 03:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
::LOL, I guess accusing someone of being like [[Ann Coulter]] is a personal attack though, huh? --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:::More like libel, as far as ''I'm'' concerned. Nonetheless, Kelly Martin's self-admitted [[WP:POINT]] violation and [[chaff]]-throwing distraction notwithstanding, she has still not offered a hint of a breath of a whisp of an iota of an explanation for the original list. Would she care to do so, or does she have any other bits of distraction gameplaying up her sleeve for our entertainment? --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 04:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::::I've answered this question at least three times that I can think of, including at least once on this page (page up a bit to see it). Stop asking it; asking it makes it look like you're posting without being informed of the full circumstances. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 04:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::Wrong! you didn't answer the question three times, you gave non-answers three times that gave no actually hint of what they were really for. Saying that they exist only to help you improve wikipedia makes no sense. I do not understand why it is necessary to be so mysterious.- [[User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg]] | [[User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Talk]] 04:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::So in other words, you're alleging that my answers were prevarications (or just lies). Do you believe that I am lying? [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 04:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
==[[user:kjlee]] is using open proxies and is most likely a sock of [[user:lightbringer]]==
 
[[user:kjlee]] started editting a few days ago and immediately/exculsively made edits to Freemasonry related articles exactly like a known banned user [[user:lightbringer]]. A [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lightbringer | Checkuser]] was requested and it was stated that he is using open proxies, which has been a tactic of LB in the past. [[Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer]] has the information on this user and his MO. Can an admin please block his latest sock. [[User:Chtirrell|Chtirrell]] 02:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== Stop the madness ==
 
Okay people, listen up. Two things need to happen: people need to stop making lists, and admins need to stop blocking Kelly Martin. This has passed beyond ridiculous and borders on discrediting everybody with the sysop bit. If there's a real problem we have a dispute resolution process somewheres that we like to parrot. If, however, this is actually the Weekend Edition of Gorilla Theatre, then the joke isn't funny anymore and it's last call. Yours, [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 02:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:It's kind of amazing that the people who disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, troll, and wheel war are being judged as no more guilty than the people who try to stop them from disrupting the place. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 02:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::Surreal. [[User:El C|El_C]] 02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::I'm not rendering a judgement one way or the other. I think the whole business is ridiculous and need to stop. People need to start talking to each other and listening. This can't happen if we're running round deleting things and blocking people. Me, I spent the day dealing with the checkuser backlog and fiddling with the Disraeli article. I come back from dinner and find this mess. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 03:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::Do you honestly believe these blocks were done for the reason of trying to "stop disrupting the place"? One good way to inflame a conflict is to turn a stupid dispute over a page's contents (in this case miscellaneous lists) into a much larger conflict by abusing administrator tools. I don't know why El_C and Jonathunder tried these blocks, but they clearly weren't meant to resolve the situation. Maybe they just wanted their names on Kelly Martin's block log, who knows. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 02:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Cyde, are you condoning what Kelly Martin is doing? I'm not saying a block was necessary, but you make it sound like Kelly Martin was just reading a romance novel peacefully in [[Central Park]] and all of a sudden El C and Jonathunder came around with these blocks. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' <small>(joturner)</small> 03:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
::::I'm re-reading my comment and I don't see a condonation anywhere. All I commented on was that I found these two blocks unwarranted and disruptive. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 03:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I was not aware of the other block. KM needed to cool down as she was engaging in WP:POINT for naught, upsetting editors. [[User:El C|El_C]] 03:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::The lists were created to troll for that reaction, this has been admitted. It's sad that people think trolling is healthy, and trying to stop someone from trolling isn't. But... yeah, using admin tools when you're involved in a dispute isn't so great (which is why I haven't done anything admin-ish with this whole mess). Though you yourself said you'd unblock her (presumably using admin tools) if she was blocked again, which seems kind of contradictory there as you're involved too.... --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 03:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Cyde, I thought anyone who accuses someone else of violating good faith patently does not ''understand'' the good faith policy, as accusing someone else of violating an assumption of good faith is ''itself'' a violation of assumption of good faith [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACyde&diff=60374100&oldid=60349885]. The thing you have to understand is that just as you have strong opinions, those who disagree with you believe that their view is the correct one just as much as you believe your's is. --[[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 03:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
::::I don't think you quite understand my comment. That quote refers only to accusing someone of violating [[WP:AGF]] (which I find quite stupid). I don't see me accusing anyone of violating [[WP:AGF]] anywhere. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 03:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:Well, let's try this:
:* No more blocks.
:* No more lists.
:* No more out-of-control, page- and namespace-hopping fight, hopefully? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 03:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::Namespacehopping? I've kept MY share of this nonsense entirely confined to my user space, except for replying here and on my talk page. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 03:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Well, it certainly ''is'' namespace-hopping now. Whether or not any particular person is to blame for that is an interesting side point, but not really relevant in a discussion of how best to stop the conflict, I think. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 03:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
::::How is namespace-hopping even relevant to this? It's not like this is spilling out into the encyclopedic namespaces or anything. Lots of things move between userspace and wikipediaspace ... big deal. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 03:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Fair enough; forget the namespace bit then. The [[meatball:ForestFire|page-hopping]] is problematic in of itself. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 03:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::I don't see that, either. So far the "disruption" has been limited to two sections of this page, my talk page, and perhaps a couple of other people's talk pages. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 03:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::And MFD and several places on RFA... ;-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 03:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Well, that's not MY doing. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 03:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::As I said above, I'm not trying to assign blame here. Could you perhaps not make any more unexplained lists of users? It would really make things a lot calmer all around, I think. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 03:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
FWIW I think Mackensen has an excellent suggestion there. Kelly: yes, it's been in your userspace. Regardless, some people have a problem with that. I assume you wouldn't be here defending yourself if people weren't perpetuating the issue, but it's like a battle, there needs to be a cease fire. The way to do that is to move on to other things and don't exacerbate the situation by creating more of these lists. Okay? El C & others: yes, I think you may have a point, Kelly Martin was being contentious, possibly disruptive, blah blah blah. It's not [[World War III]]. Why don't we just move on, forget about it for a day, and if it still bothers you, go through the full dispute resolution thing. Then we can get back to [[WP:5P|building a great encyclopedia]]. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<font color="orange">'''juice'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 03:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
: Are we building a great encyclopedia here? I don't think there are enough good Wikipedians around to actually build a good -- let alone great -- encyclopedia. See the report on my behavior above, for example. Out of the entire Wikipedia population, I think there are only five or ten good users who don't use long signatures, who write great articles (that reach featured article status and can be cited by others), who are friendly, who always get along with others, and who have never made a mistake. (I say "never" because I mean it. If anyone makes a mistake on Wikipedia, then their contributions are instantly and permanently devalued.) Don't give me that "we're only human" crap either. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 04:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
::I think myself that people are too hard on Kelly because of the userbox mess from months ago. Everything she does is scrutinized and over scrutinized. Her lists are not desirable but I'm still not sure what rules she is violating here. AGF is too vague for me, especially for a block. And are we building a great encyclopedia? What the heck does that have to do with anything? --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(meow)]]</sup> 04:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Yes, well I [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin/original#Response|supported]] KM on that front (some misgivings now, though my hate for userboxes continues to know no bounds), but here she was simply wasting everyone's time and energy, I felt. I know some users were intimidated by her cryptic lists, which remain unexplained. [[User:El C|El_C]] 04:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::::RE: all the "great encyclopedia" bravado, I created ~80 articles in the last month and performed numerous administrative tasks. If you want my (and others') time and expertise, don't treat us with contempt. [[User:El C|El_C]] 04:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::Then don't act in a manner deserving of contempt. [[User:Rebecca|Rebecca]] 05:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::These one-sided, tired one-liners are unimpressive. [[User:El C|El_C]] 05:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::::I dare say, we have a pro-KM clique-like mentality with responses that could be predicted with some regularity. [[User:El C|El_C]] 05:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
==Kaleen, Australian Capital Territory==
Please look at the history of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaleen%2C_Australian_Capital_Territory. It has been repeatedly vandalised by 137.92.97.111 , Princeofkaleen, 58.169.8.255, Grizzlydeer, and 137.154.16.30.
 
Note that 210.9.138.222 is me as an unregistered user, and that my contribution was an attempt to remove the graffiti.
Thanks!
They come along about once every month... There's absolutely no need to act here. You can always sign up for a user account and get access to a watchlist to more easily monitor changes to the page though. Thanks. '''[[User:Sasquatch|Sasquatch]]''' [[User_talk:Sasquatch|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Sasquatch|c]] 04:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== User Removing Warnings and Stonewalling pages ==
 
*For some reason, whenever I post here, it gets ignored. Let's hope that doesn't happen this time.
:*{{vandal|ED209}} recently removed an NPA and a AGF warning from his page. I would do something about it, but if I do, he'll just accuse me of vandalism. In addition, after removing them from his page, he copy/pasted them onto my page. I removed them as nonsense, but if an administrator could step in, it'd be much appreciated. Secondly, the same user is stonewalling any additions to [[Michael Di Biase]]. I have spent the last 3 days attempting to compromise, changing a dispute paragraph, providing citations, making it as neutral as humanly possible, yet he continues to make up total nonsense as reason not to include it. Not to mention his nonstop personal attacks. Honestly I feel as if I'm being assaulted from all sides here... I'd really appreciate some help. Again, could someone please step in and make a ruling here? His antics are preventing any progress on [[Vaughan, Ontario|Vaughan]] related articles. - [[User:Pm shef|pm_shef]] 04:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I have given him a warning about it the whole thing. Looks like he is very involved with articles related to [[Vaughan, Ontario]], and has POV issues all over the place. Maybe a [[WP:RFC|Request for comments]] is in order. [[User:Circeus|Circeus]] 04:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
*Anybody who actually gets involved with this dispute better read the entire history of the situation. [[user:pm_shef]] is guilty of everything he accuses me. When he removes warnings from his talkpage it is fine, when I do it he calls it vandalism. His additions to the [[Michael Di Biase]] page are POV. His father is a Vaughan Councillor. He was quoted in the local newspaper as being a watchdog for Vaughan-related pages on the orders of his father. He has attacked me on many occasions, he is condescenting, and never assumes good faith. He has acted as a bully to me as a relatively new user. He has accused me of being a sockpuppet for [[user:VaughanWatch]]. I was proven innocent through an IP check and by the support of many admins. He still insinuates somehow connected to that user. Please help. [[User:ED209|ED209]] 04:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
 
**This entire situation looks like it really needs Mediation. And [[user:pm shef]] has not removed any warnings from his talk. Your adition was clearly retaliatory. [[User:Circeus|Circeus]] 04:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::*I think ED here is referring to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pm_shef&diff=65488139&oldid=65466987 this] which he added... and are baseless... '''[[User:Sasquatch|Sasquatch]]''' [[User_talk:Sasquatch|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Sasquatch|c]] 04:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
This is really a strange situation. It seems every day or so, a "new" user or a user that has been dormant for months comes out of the woodworks and adds really POV information in either the [[Vaughan municipal election, 2006]] article or the one about Di Biase. As a sample, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaughan_municipal_election%2C_2006&diff=65444995&oldid=65443949 this edit] that actually starts to mention this edit war in the article. Also, through all of this, I have not seen pm_shef make a personal attack or add anything that was too POV even though he has been significantly provoked. -- [[User:JamesTeterenko|JamesTeterenko]] 04:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pm_shef&diff=next&oldid=65454111 This] edit has [[user:pm_shef]] deleting what I deem to be crucial information to his talk page. Admins and other users need to see this article to understand the situation. Yet, [[user:pm_shef]] deletes this. When I delete his sarcastic warnings off my page, he reports me. Go figure. [[User:ED209|ED209]] 04:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:I am not familiar with the entire Vaughan dispute, but something is definitely going on here. Both users are now having rather ridiculous quabbling on my talk page. ED, linkslike tehse do not belong there anyway and pm and every right to remove them. If anything they should have been posted on the proper article talk page. [[User:Circeus|Circeus]] 04:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::I'm on it. I'm familiar with the Vaughan wars and all the players. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<font color="orange">'''juice'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 05:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Hope you do better at damage control than me. On my side, I shall go to bed, as it is past one in the morning here. [[User:Circeus|Circeus]] 05:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== another troll/vandal ==
 
{{user5|KJFhjf}}
Brand new account, vandalizes several random pages (see contribs), jumps into [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klerck|Klerck AfD]] to press for deletion, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Klerck_%28second_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=65473153] and deletes a related section from Two Towers film article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Two_Towers_%28film%29&diff=prev&oldid=65473243] with no edit summary. Might be sock of {{user5|Werto}}.
 
:-- [[User:Phr|Phr]] ([[User talk:Phr|talk]]) 04:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
'''Update:''' see also {{user5|RumDuck}} who came in via the same IP as [[User:Werto]] according to [[User_talk:RumDuck]]. That IP has been blatantvandal-blocked several times and RumDuck appears to be a vandal [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Beckham&diff=prev&oldid=65444384]. Ryulong's post a few sections up has some more info. [[User:Phr|Phr]] ([[User talk:Phr|talk]]) 04:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)