Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive44

User:Jabowery

Comments like [1] merit an indefinite block, IMNSHO. I am an uninvolved party to the dispute in question. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This is very new territory for me, as I can never recall having defended a racist before, but this Holocaust denier is apparently a frequent (and even sometimes useful) contributor to the discussion about our Holocaust denial article, and a number of other pages related to white supremacy. While he has attacked Jews as a class, I don't see evidence in his last dozen or so edits of attacking or harassing any editors in particular (please correct me if I'm wrong). Personally, I guess I am a little too committed to free speech to ban someone for expressing racist opinions on pages related to racism. Now, if he is harassing other editors or bringing racist ideas into discussions where it is clearly not appropriate, it would be a different matter. Dragons flight 15:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The "racist" in question is not merely expressing racist opinions, though. He is, rather, abusing other editors with them. Holding or expressing racist opinions is one thing. But abusing other editors under the cloak of "expressing opinions" is quite another.

WP:NPA applies at least as much to someone who berates others as "mentally damaged by Jews" as to someone calling them "mentally damaged by screwing dogs" or any other random insult. We would not defend the latter insult by saying that it's just an opinion about dogs; and we should likewise not defend the former by saying it's just an opinion about race. Both are personal attacks. --FOo 16:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ummm, you may be reading it differently than I, but the anon started a discussion (several paragraphs above the diff location), about the success and influence of Jewish culture on America, and how social and economic circumstances led to some events be much more widely known than others. As such, I would say the racist in question is actually agreeing with him (albeit in less than wonderful way). Unless I'm missing something this doesn't read as a personal attack to me because it isn't being directed at any editor, merely at the Jewish people (still bad, but not something I would ban for). I think the comparison I might make is to party politics. If the statement had been referring to Republicans instead, would we be having any discussion about a ban or a block? If no, then I would say it is probably tolerable free speech. Dragons flight 17:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank goodness, then, that Wikipedia is not the town square. Certainly, it is legally permissible (in the nation where Wikipedia's servers are!) to accuse people of having had their mental faculties damaged by Jews. However, that doesn't mean Wikipedia is enjoined from having a policy forbidding such conduct on this private property.

And Wikipedia does have such a policy. WP:NPA forbids editors from calling each other "mentally damaged" for any reason -- whether that mental damage is alleged to be congenital, syphilitic, political, or racist.

From the perspective of Wikipedia policy, the offense here is not the expression of racist views. It is the derogation of fellow editors. --FOo 18:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Fubar, I think you have missed part of my point. I don't read his statement as a personal attack, so I don't think NPA applies. I read his statement as saying that the world in general has been "mentally damaged" (which I read as severely misled) by the actions of Jews, and not an attack on any particular editor for being Jewish or accepting the mainstream views. Do I find his statements and manner offensive? Yes. Do I believe he is racist? Absolutely. But do I believe these statements were meant as an attack on anyone else involved in the conversation? No, I do not. Keep in mind, that he is in agreement with the anon whom he is replying to that other atrocities have been unfairly neglected. Now, we might all get together and decide to ban racists from Wikipedia (which might be a good thing), but under existing policy I don't think there is any grounds to ban him, as Hipocrite originally suggested.

If you disagree about the reading of his statements or the meaning of NPA, well okay then, but I've already wasted entirely too much time defending the rights of someone I wouldn't want to let into my house, so I am going to go find something (anything) better to do. Dragons flight 19:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

My advice is to let it go this time, and if he keeps it up, then take him to the ArbCom. I can't see an automatic indefinite block just for stating some hateful beliefs. Everyking 18:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I posted a warning on his talk page when I saw his post. This is an editor who has admitted in the past to having some form of relationship with Stormfront (or has at least posted sympathetically on their forum). I'm minded not to block him for this one comment, but if he repeats it, then I'm going to consider it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

If you do it, discuss it here first. There was already one controversy about this kind of thing. Everyking 19:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree In general, I'm opposed to Admin's putting down indefinate blocks for user conduct that is not patently egregious(Spamming, pure vandalism etc.), without an arbcom proceding. Klonimus 03:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It's really all in how he chooses to phrase the sentiment. The statement as it exists is certainly treading close to WP:NPA, implying that certain of our editors are "stupid" and have "damage[d]...mental faculties":

The fact that people call such a statement "conspiracy theorizing" and nod their heads in stupid agreement, as you called my prior similar statements, merely demonstrates the damage to the mental faculties Jews have caused to the population.

Had he instead phrased the remark slightly differently, perhaps along the lines of

I believe that people call such statements "conspiracy theorizing" because they have been misled by Jews in positions of authority.

The same (extremely distasteful and flagrantly racist) concept is thus expressed without resort to personal attacks on our other editors. Jabowery should be cautioned to tread very carefully here. His viewpoint is shared by a vocal minority, and should be reported in an NPOV manner—but that doesn't grant him carte blanche to insult our editors. I won't shed any tears if he gets blocked the next time he describes one of our editors as mentally damaged. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

James, I'll be happy to post a note here after I take action (though I currently have no plans to), but there's no need to do that beforehand. As for controversy, if you mean the block of User:Amalekite, that was supported by two-thirds of the editors who commented on it, and was a very different kind of case, involving posting a hit list of Jewish editors on the Stormfront website. Nothing borderline about that. In the meantime, I'm going to wait to see what Jabowery's response is to my post, [2] (and actually, I don't expect he will respond) and hope he doesn't make similar comments in future. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

There absolutely is a need. You need to get community agreement before acting in such a case. Everyking 22:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

If I feel his comments reach the level of disruption, I will block him. Otherwise, I won't (and currently have no plans to). There's absolutely no need for me to post here in advance whenever I want to block someone for disruption. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Not to go so far as to suggest that Everyking would strongly object no matter what you do, but (proverbial end of the sentence) El_C 05:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

So it would be better to block first, and then get into a morass of controversy like before, with the community having no actual say except some diminished input after the fact. Of course I can see why you favor doing things in that order, since once something is done its hard to override it (and if somebody was to unblock, then you'd just reblock), whereas if you discuss it in advance it's much easier for the community to wield a veto. This is how the whole Amalekite thing played out; it's not a purely academic question. There are lots of incidences like this, even if this one in particular might not get to that point. I find your objection to what I'm saying here pretty disturbing and representative of a flaw we've got in WP culture pertaining to admins. If the issue is not clear, then you should get community input first. To do it otherwise means the admin acts and the community just nods. And as to El C, no, I promise if she discussed a block prior to implementing it I would not object at all. In fact I would be quite pleased. Everyking 08:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

If by no say you mean the thousands of words expended, then yes. El_C 14:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

What? Everyking 00:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

if the community (including at least one non-Everyking user) objects to SV's blocks, they can open an rfc against her. SV has to honour policy, and as long as she does that, she does not have to come asking for approval for her every move. A substantial portion of the community are admins (there are about 150 non-admins with >5000 edits, as opposed to 570 admins), and they can revert any block by SV they disagree with. For some reason, disagreement about blocks among admins are very rare. That's not because all 570 admins think alike, but because they all have enough experience to know what will be controversial, and enough maturity not to indulge in controversial blocking. The system works very well. When on one occasion an admin unblocked himself, his rfc was very condemning, and I think he was de-adminned. That goes to show that there is no admin 'clique' defending their own no matter what. dab (ᛏ) 15:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Who said anything about a clique? My point was it's preferable to discuss a controversial action in advance, which SlimVirgin has refused to do for a reason that I can only guess at. Are you seriously disagreeing with me that discussing controversial actions prior to acting is ideal? Everyking 15:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I have intended to give you that reason :rolleyes:. I see no evidence that SV's block was considered controversial. If there is no 'clique', no admin will get away with an unfair block in the face of 569 other admins, so where's the problem? dab (ᛏ) 15:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I could argue about this, but it really has nothing to do with my point, so I won't. Everyking 03:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Administrators are trusted members of the community, who have been given their admin powers precisely because of that trust. Use of those powers in support of policy is not controversial, and there is no need for admins to get pre-approval for doing exactly what the community has empowered them to do. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I just find this hilarious. Jay, you're an arbitrator. Obviously the controversy comes from when we can't agree on the interpretation and application of policy. Of course if it's clearly within policy there's no controversy. The controversy is when not everybody agrees that it's in line with policy. Everyking 03:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

James, you disagree with everything that anyone says, whether you've read it or not, whether you've understood it or not. Please stop. [3] No one is about to block Jabowery. You're making a mountain out of a molehill; this is a figment of your imagination. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say you were about to block him. I made a recommendation in case you ever were going to, since you suggested the possibility. And please don't make ridiculous claims about me. Everyking 04:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Burnout warning: would anybody else like to keep an eye on Talk:Bogdanov Affair?

I've said, and meant, that getting attacked over the Bogdanov Affair business didn't bother me any, but three weeks later I'm starting to fray a little. I've started to experience these weird impulses to speak to User:XAL the way she speaks to me, which would be incredibly inappropriate. Would somebody else like to keep an eye on Talk:Bogdanov Affair for a while? Or maybe unprotect Bogdanov Affair (and stand well back)? Please see "Entry on Talk:Bogdanov Affair moved here from WP:AN above. Maybe I'm not trusting the wiki way enough here, and should just leave it to sort itself out, but several of the users who frequent that talkpage seem pretty unfamiliar with wiki policies and, well, customs. BTW mediation has started between User:YBM and Igor Bogdanov at WP:TINMC, plus also another, less clearcut, mediation initiated by User:XAL. Bishonen | talk 00:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I will help watch and give an outside opinion when I can; as I have no understanding of the topic.

The above was posted by Terrybader. Thanks, Terry. Bishonen | talk 19:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes it was, thanks for the catch Bishonen! Terry ^{T | @ | C} 19:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added a message at User:XAL's talk page, since she contacted me. Apparently, I'm a nonpartial admin, and her protected, due to my Welcome Wagon message I first left at her talk page. Maybe this will sort itself out, though I doubt it. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 23:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I too shall watch the page. --Maru (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

i am not sure, but are you guys watching this page? am i the only Wikipedian preventing the subjects of the article from deleting factual, relevant, and salient information and turning the article into their own personal vanity article? as Bishonen has noted, i am at Wikipedia long before this mess came up. it is not my sole agenda as it is for Igor, his sock puppets, XAL (God Bless her), and CatherineV. but i will not let them turn this into a vanity page and they just will not let the facts (which aren't flattering for them) stay in the article. r b-j 17:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

My own $0.02 was spent already. User:XAL had never posted on her own user talk page, and the contents there were only the insults she had put on talk:Bogdanov Affair. Obviously, I have no stake in the undeletion of the page, if folks need to read the past behavior, as deletion of talk pages is iffy under the best of cases. I did so because the page was, in effect, not a user talk page, but, rather, a poison pot. Geogre 00:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

And I'd appreciate if someone would check out what I've said, and give me any feedback on how to deal with disruptive users. This is sort of my first mediative jobs, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Image Tag Removal

[4].

Any chance you could give us some prose here and sign your post? User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Above link was posted by Hipocrite 00:20, September 15, 2005 (UTC): [5]. Methinks he's complaining about the actions of User:Noitall. Ryan's comment below also seems to apply to Noitall. Lupo 07:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

sigh User keeps calling people who tag it's image as "vandal"s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RN#Vandal. Keeps changing copyright tag.... from fair use without source to GFDL without source etc. etc. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• I have went ahead and deleted the photo, since we cannot use fair use images that are not even being used. Zach (Sound Off) 07:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

...And the image is back. Image:Proper Implants edited.jpg is a picture of a pair of barely-clothed breasts (safe for work unless you have a particularly uptight boss.) Based on User:Noitall's comments at Image talk:Proper Implants edited.jpg, User talk:Noitall, and User talk:Noitall/archive 2, Noitall seems to be unable or unwilling to understand the difference between "used with permission", "GFDL", and "fair use" as applied to image licensing and copyrights. I readily admit that copyright is a complicated subject, but I'm at a loss as to how to get through to this editor. This problem seems to extend to a number of images uploaded by this editor. Advice or assistance in handling this would be appreciated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

User:PaedophileApologist

I just noted the above page while on RC/NP patrol. Could an admin please do the necessary?—encephalonὲγκέφαλον  16:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

This is clearly in violation of the username policy. The user also states on his user page "There is nothing wrong with be a molester." I've blocked and asked that he change his name. Carbonite | Talk 16:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Carbonite. I do wonder at the wisdom of inviting such a ******* to sign up to edit WP; I am, needless to say, hoping he'll decline your offer. Thanks—encephalonὲγκέφαλον  16:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, would you expect the same treatment for the usernames "StalinistApologist", "MurderIsCool", or "TheftRocks"? --FOo 17:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It depends on the admin. But personally, I would ban the first, probably the second, and warn the third. Ral315 00:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

In cases less clear than the present one, no admin needs to make a judgement call alone, there is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names for borderline cases, and people can always ask for second opinions here before blocking. I don't think anyone will object to the blocking of User:PaedophileApologist though, so that's hypothetical here. dab (ᛏ) 07:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Carbonite's action in this case is 100% defensible. Good job spotting, Encephalon. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Good call Carbonite. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

User:LevKamensky and the an intelligent AfD

I've blocked LevKamensky (talk · contribs) for 1 week, the expected duration of the AfD process concerning An intelligent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The user seems to be unable to contain his enthusiasm for this article, which resulted in altering votes,[6] creating a duplicate article at Intelligent (a person) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and disruption of the overall AfD process to prove some kind of point: see [7] as well as the user's subsequent indiscriminate keep votes on a number of current AfD subpages. I've reverted those votes because they were clearly made in bad faith. Prior to these recent events, LevKamensky has also made a number of personal attacks on the AfD subpage.[8] Some block was needed in order to stop his spree on AfD, but please advise on the appropriate duration of the block. The currently active block is intended to coincide with the regular duration of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An intelligent. --MarkSweep✍ 05:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The same user has arguably edited anonymously from IP address 70.114.136.31 (talk · contribs), and in a much nastier fashion. --MarkSweep✍ 06:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Good call. Remove him. --Golbez 07:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

For one, his "enthusiasm" is certainly disruptive to the AfD, process, but a long block will definitely cause resentment and create a new problem. Looking at it, my initial thought was that we should try to engage in dialogue and prove that unfruitful before slamming down on him. Perhaps a better solution would have been a short term block with an explanation as to exactly why he has been blocked and a warning not to do it again and let the AfD run its course. If that didn't work, go ahead with the long block.

That being said, I have just read the contributions of 70.114.136.31 (talk · contribs). Block with extreme prejudice. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

70.114.136.31's various edits to my Talk page, in particular this one, are informative. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

We get some real nutcases poor team players on the wikipedia... Geez. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

After being unblocked LevKamensky continues his behavior of disregard of wikipedia policies and disrespect of other editors and seen in his talk page User talk:LevKamensky, from which he persistently removes my warnings, see e.g., here. I am going to raise a more serious action about his permanent ban. mikka (t) 19:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

LevKamensky (talk · contribs) is on an AfD nomination streak currently, I'd guess from bitterness regarding Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abram_Kamensky — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I blocked him for 24 hours and rolled back all the deletion tag additions (28, at my count). I notice that someone has already started deleting the actual AfD pages (none of which he actually finished), but I wonder if we might not want to keep them for evidence? My block was short because I was unaware at first of his history and rationale, but I would certainly support a longer, if not permanent, block. Postdlf 22:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I also saw that someone was deleted them as bad faith nominations. I am continuing that effort. We can restore them if they are needed as evidence. - Tεxτurε 22:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. Now that I have a better idea of the problem, I'm also going to extend the temporary ban to a week instead of merely 24 hours. Though I predict that a permanent ban is going to be the only solution... Postdlf 22:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. He left behind this threat along with a rant in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aleksander_Kamensky:

"So my suggestion is to delete all my contributions. And to abort my participation at Wikipidia. Otherwise I’ll come back with other Ips and haunt user:mikkalai, user:zoe and others, whose behavior I consider immoral according to my standards. I will vandalize every contribution that they make."

Perhaps he will calm down after your ban. If not we can take further action. Meanwhile watch for an anon attack on Mikkalai and Zoe. - Tεxτurε 22:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

On his user page he announced that he is energy healer. On his talk page he founds his own party. These charismatic people never give up. 23:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The important part of Lev's "threat" is and others. This means that not just the contributions of mikkalai and Zoe are under threat, but the contributions of every "cockblocker" (Lev's way to describe us): Zoe, Dmcdevit, Knowledge Seeker, DESpiegel, Mikkalai, Ghirlandajo, Hooperbloop and yours truly. Aecis 23:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

In such cases the only solution is don't feed trolls. mikka (t) 00:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

We might need some form of AfD patrol in the foreseeable future, and perhaps even RfA patrol. On his talk page, Lev warned that he would "submit all your articles for deletion, and you wouldn't know it was me, because I will be using different personas and different IP addresses" (capitals removed by me), if we don't delete his articles. He then added: "Zoe Dmcdevit Knowledge Seeker DESpiegel Aecis Mikkalai Ghirlandajo Hooperbloop SWEET DREAMS!" It looks like we got ourself a new Argyrosargyrou on our hands. Aecis 15:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

He's used at least one sockpuppet/shill, Shillori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for purposes of ballot stuffing and spamming. Today another sockpuppet with exactly the same agenda, namely ShilIori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), came along. I've blocked both indefinitely. Watch out for further activity. --MarkSweep✍ 16:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Fff (talk · contribs) too? -- Curps 20:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It sure seems like it. Good catch! Aecis 21:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

And 209.68.139.10 (talk · contribs). User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Threatened Vandalism?

I performed a couple of edits on Jon Corzine about 24 hours ago, replacing edits by User:DrZhivago and User:67.83.212.235 as PoV. In the process, I also attempted to tone down the pre-existing contrary PoV about Corzine's opponent in the present NJ gubernatorial race, Doug Forrester.

I received a e-mail from DrZhivago which began by assuring me that he didn't "want to start an edit war, and I don't want to drag unfounded accusations and blatant bias into Wikipedia." and ends with:

Do you see where I'm going with this? References to Forrestr invite more and

more references to Forrester. References to accusations against Forrester invite references approximately 10 times the number of well-known, well-founded, and cited ethics questions for Corzine. I'm not sure what else you were expecting.

The e-address DrZhivago used suggests (but does not prove) an association with Forrester or his campaign. (User:67.83.212.235 has made five edits, all to the articles on the two candidates.)

I would appreciate it if an admin would keep an eye on the articles in question. Septentrionalis 13:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Generallego and others

User:Generallego, User:Symbols, are users who, along with User: 65.48.122.43, have yet to perform any edits other than vandalising my user page - blanking, changing to the content of other articles, or editing the content innacurately. I suspect its the one person, but I've no idea who. I'd appreciate if Generallego, who's currently messing with it, could be temporarily blocked, but I'd really like someone who can - and I think its only admins or devs who can, which is why I'm posting here - to sockcheck to see if its likely the same person. The unmasked IP belongs to Rogers cable in Canada, for a start. --Kiand 19:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

And now User:141.154.151.219. I haven't even been very active recently, so I've no idea why this is being done. --Kiand 20:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• They've received a warning and stopped. I'd wait with blocking unless they offend again. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

And they're back again today, at my user page and talk page. --Kiand 16:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

And considering this diff [9], I think I can safely point the finger at User:Zizban, who's been fecking around with my user page for 6 months or more at this stage. --Kiand 16:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Revolución

Revolución (talk · contribs): I've noticed that many of this user's edits consist of removing large portions of text from articles without use of talk pages or edit summaries. The text he removes describes conservative or right-wing viewpoints. I've reverted some of these recent removals. Could someone please help me keep an eye on this user? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Watching, and left a note on talk. That kind of removal is not merely NPOVing, it includes removal of already neutral facts (such as the differently punctuated version of the 2nd amendment to the US constitution and things). -Splash^talk 22:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Gah. About 10 minutes ago I started trying to post this edit: I looked at their recent contribs and, for the most part, they look ok if slightly agenda-driven (so not completely ok). The off-colour ones seem largely to be from this evening. -Splash^talk 22:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

URRG... kind of unrelated, but this guy made blank opposes on my Ashlee Simpson FACs and then proceeded to troll on one of the articles, LOL :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The first edit of his that I encountered was this one, in which he changed the current Iraqi flag to the version with Saddam Hussein's handwriting. I reverted it, but didn't say anything to him. I probably should have. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Not sure those count as trolling (as opposed to confusion — it should be stressed that edit summaries do help), but at any case, I think we have a rule against writing the name Ashlee Simpson on this notice board (now that is trolling!). /ducks and covers El_C 22:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

LOL!!! You're contradicting yourself in your own statement :). Well, anyway I was a little harsh - I should definately assume good faith more, thanks. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Who, me? No, never! El_C 23:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the Flag of Iraq page should've been updated then, because it clearly stated that the flag as pictured in the article Iraq was not official yet, so I changed it back to the older flag (which by the way has much better proportions than this weird-looking flag). So I ask: Is the flag official, yes or no? Which flag will you see on official Iraqi buildings? If it's the so-called "Saddam-era" flag, which the basic design (just without the handwritten script) existed before Saddam took power, then the new flag should be removed. --Revolución (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The only thing that changed with the flag is the proportions and the style of the script. But, since materials are very low in Iraq, I highly suspect that many Iraqis will use the Saddam era flag, abliet they both are very smiliar. Zach (Sound Off) 03:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

User:67.137.28.187

67.137.28.187 (talk · contribs), claiming to be Jeff Merkey, has repeatedly been removing text from articles and from Talk pages. He has been warned and blocked before for this, but continues to do so. He also has a legal threat on his Talk page. I blocked him for a month, and he's now threatening to call Jimbo and demand that I unblock him. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

lol. Here's to hoping you get no flack for blocking an IP for that long. --Golbez 08:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Masturbation is for teh Gays

I'm guessing this doesn't fall in line with Username guidelines.—encephalonὲγκέφαλον 03:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC) My apologies. Flcelloguy's already on it.—encephalonὲγκέφαλον 03:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

"The gays" have all the fun. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the post that got reverted a few minutes ago, I actually tried the log in and it actually worked. While he was blocked for what he done, I also changed his password. Zach (Sound Off) 03:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

LOL.—encephalonὲγκέφαλον 03:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Too bad the autoblocker didn't catch you. It would have been nice to see you explain that one! Dmcdevit·t 03:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Also Masturbation is for teh Homos (talk · contribs), Gays like to masturbate (talk · contribs), Masturbation is for the Gays (talk · contribs), and the similar sounding Pracastination is for the Laz.....e (talk · contribs) created at the same time. These look like they're going to be for vandalism. Dmcdevit·t 03:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Four Wheels

According to newuserlog, this account was created only four days ago:

• 03:45, 13 September 2005 Four Wheels newusers (Created the user Four Wheels (Talk | contribs))

The account has no contributions (or at least no undeleted contributions) other than the pagemove vandalism of about an hour ago.

A four-day-old account with no contributions, yet it's able to do pagemoves?? When was the previous restriction removed? -- Curps 05:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the exact restriction is, but is it possible that there are so many new users registering, that the most recent (say) 1% of users only go back a couple of days? Antandrus (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia grows about 10% per month, so yes, 1% in four days is not unrealistic. So, want to join the rest of us in asking for a stronger throttle? Dragons flight 06:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

How about a different/additional throttle, such as this one: the ability to move pages at all is only enabled for accounts that have made at least N edits in the main article namespace, for a reasonable value of N (say, N=20). Of course, that would have to go together with a policy that would allow admins to permanently block any account for which the first N contributions are overwhelmingly vandalism. In other words, we don't want to give vandals who've managed to deface N pages the ability to do page move vandalism as a reward for their bad behavior. However, if we can get N halfway decent edits in exchange for the cleanup work required to undo page move vandalism, it may be a worthwhile bargain. --MarkSweep✍ 20:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Image vandalism

A user, now banned, uploaded an indecent image over Image:Parthenonnashville1.jpg. User Qnonsense tried to revert it, and so did I, but whether I purge the page, or force a refresh in my browser, I cannot see the original picture. I opened it in a different browser and still saw the vandalised image. I tried deleting the version of the image the vandal had uploaded, but that made no difference. If I go to some of the articles which include the image, I can see the (presumably cached) original. What am I doing wrong?-gadfium 06:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the image was included in the current featured article, but has been temporarily removed from it.-gadfium 06:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks okay when I go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Parthenonnashville1.jpg. Maybe you should clear your cache? Did you try a Control-F5? User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not a client-side caching issue; I'd never loaded the image before, but it still appears in its vandalized state at Parthenon. —Cryptic (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, this is weird. The link to the original 198416-byte version is pointing at the vandalized 18675-byte version, which is why all three of our reverts failed. Sigh. I'm going to remove it from its articles until this can be sorted out. —Cryptic (talk) 06:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you're right. When I go direct to the Image page, it looks okay, but when you go to the Parthenon page, it's the gross image. And I deleted all of the versions of the image until the good version prior to the vandalism, and it's still gone bad. I don't know how to fix it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I found a copy of the image on the Commons and reuploaded it. All should be well once the 06:49 17 September and 15:43 28 April versions are deleted. Now I'm going to go wash my eyeballs. —Cryptic (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

If it's any help, it seems perfectly fine at the moment, no matter whether I visit the image or the pages which have the image on it. I was unaware that Tennessee had a parthenon. It arouses mixed feelings within me, and reinforces at least one stereotype about Americans. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Damn the USians and their fricken Parthenons! Is Bush behind this? ;-) Func( t, c, @, ) 01:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You didn't think we'd let those Greecians show us up did you? Kaldari 20:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the image is not showing up for me in the Parthenon article. Is it possible there's still something screwed up? Kaldari 20:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, seems to be working now. Kaldari 20:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

New speedy deletion criterion

A reminder: Jimbo recently set a new speedy deletion criterion:

Images in category "Images with unknown source" or "Images with unknown copyright status" which have been on the site for more than 7 days, regardless of when uploaded. [10]

So he is asking us to go ahead and clear out those cats as soon as possible. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Important: Remember to change all of the pages listed in "File links" before deleting the image. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and started to clear out the first category. Unless new images were added, X, Y and Z were done. Zach (Sound Off) 00:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

as if the que at WP:CP wasn't long enough already. Ok i'll see what I can do. see you all in a week. Maybe.Geni 00:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if it is better to leave the broken links in the pages to encourage them to be replaced (with properly licensed versions, of course). Nandesuka 03:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

ok can someone explain to me why in the name of all that is wiki why thisTemplate:Weiqi-image is in the Template namespace?Geni 00:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

while we are about it what is Flower album doing in the article namepace?Geni 01:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest when people start deleting images, they let the people who uploaded them know about it, so they don't just upload them all over again? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Most of the uploaders left the project and never came back, so that is why Jimbo told us to forego any communication with the uploader. Zach (Sound Off) 04:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting getting their approval or anything, just posting that it's been deleted, and why. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank You & Request for Release of Information

To whom it may concern:

First of all, I wanted to thank the Administrators/editors who so efficiently acted to delete three anonymous attempts to post attacks directed at me on or about June 8, 2005. I cannot thank you enough!

Secondly, I would like to ask you to please release any and all information you have in your possession relative to the three attempts that were made to post these attacks against my person and professional integrity. A Google search of my name reveals that three attempts were made to post malicious posts on or about June 8, 2008 on Wikipedia, as one or two sentences are still available online making reference to these attempted posts.

This request for information is meant to elicit release of the following: (1) uncensored, unedited copies of the text of all three posts in full as submitted to Wikipedia by the unidentified writer; (2) copies of any and all identifying information you may have about the writer of the three posts, including but not limited to email address; (3) copies of any and all warnings or notices Wikipedia may have sent to the writer informing him or her that his/her submissions were inappropriate.

Please be advised that I would prefer to obtain this information through informal means, however, if necessary I will pursue whatever civil action is necessary to ensure release of this information so that I may protect my legal rights against whoever is attempting to slander my name and professional image. I suspect I know who is behind the three attempted Wikipedia postings, but I need proof in order to take further legal action against said individual before this person causes some real harm.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at my email address or at either one of my telephone numbers listed below. Thank you very much for you time and your kind assistance in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Mercedes Alonzo Attorney at Law

hmmm Wikipedia:No legal threats. For what it is worth all the information we have availible (which does not include email address) on the person behind the article is availible to everyone with a bit of detective work.Geni 02:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I emailed her a copy of the page history log from Mercedes Alonzo. Dragons flight 03:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I object to this release. Ral315 03:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear, as noted below, the present version of the software allows anyone to look at the edit history (but not content) of a deleted article. Dragons flight 04:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry...I thought you emailed her the full copy including the page content. Objection withdrawn. Ral315 05:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree with Geni on this one... Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 03:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually a bit confused by what Geni said. Since the article is deleted, how could someone who is not an admin do a bit of detective work on the article's contributors? Func( t, c, @, ) 04:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe they have read access to deleted articles now. El_C 04:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that's kinda cool. They can see the history times and stuff, but not the actual text itself. I should log out more often...it's a whole different 'pedia. ;-) Func( t, c, @, ) 04:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, not the actual text? That's pretty silly. Anyway, this legal threat can be safely ignored. This is not the propper medium, and Mercedes Alonzo is inadvertantly out of line for bringing it up here; his edits must adhere to Wikipedia policy, that is an uncompromising condition of him (or anyone) making any edits in the first place. El_C 04:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I very much doubt that this is from a real lawyer either. I'm suspecting social engineering... Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 04:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Care to suggest what benefit this request would have for an impostor? Besides which there is a Mercedes Alonzo who is an assistant AG for Connecticut, according to google. Dragons flight 04:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

An assistant AG, no less. :) Anyway, for our immediate purposes, that's immaterial, though not entirely uninteresting. El_C 04:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, I would expect an assistant AG not to misuse the term 'slander'—defamatory material posted to Wikipedia would, I think, be 'libel'. Oh well. It doesn't do any harm to give out the IP address of the contributor; that information is publicly available anyway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I belive that in soem cases courts have held defamation on web fora to be slander, rather than libel, on the grounds of their transitory nature and informality, and the reduced rspect they therefore carry. So the term may have been used quite sensibly for the issue at hand. DES ^(talk) 17:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Not that this means anything, because this is easy to find, but the phone number given is real, for the Consumer Protection division of the Connecticut Attorney General's office. Ral315 05:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, she's emailed the Wikipedia info address as well; I'm sending her an answer there (really, we don't *have* much more information than is already publicly viewable) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

She, why did I say he? I'm a fan of Mercedes Sosa! El_C 07:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

And I am equally adamant in pursuing whoever wrote Sherurcij is a faggot nazi jew' on the bathroom walls...but alas, sometimes I just have to accept graffiti/vandalism against my professional reputation as a fact of life and move on with more important things. Sherurcij 07:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

There may not be an email address. Wikipedia can be edited anonymously (only showing an IP address) from anywhere. Any homeless bum off the streets could walk into a public Internet café, pay the price for fifteen minutes of Internet access, and add insulting information to the article about this guy here. — JIP | Talk 20:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Jimbeaux

I am assuming good faith and not blocking this new user on sight. They have not yet done anything, but the name is suspicious. Probably a good idea to keep an eye on this person. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I should hope not (blocking on sight - what gives you the authority, as distinct from the ability, to do that anyway?). What is suspicious about this name? --209.43.25.154 10:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The ability grants the authority, and the suspicion is that it's someone impersonating Jimbo Wales. --Golbez 19:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The ability does not grant the authority. The blocking authority is vested in the admin to only use their power to implement community agreed policy. There is no way that any right minded, reasonable user could consider that a user with the name of User:Jimbeaux is trying to impersonate User:Jimbo Wales. To suggest this is an attempted impersonation is just ludicrous, so my question stands: on what grounds, and under what authority, could this new user be blocked on sight? --formerly 209.43.25.154 14:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Warning to User:Ruy Lopez and User:Adam Carr, dispute between administrators

There's been a very long-running dispute on Khmer Rouge, resulting in the article being editable only for 25 out of the past 100 days:

• 19:15, 17 September 2005 Tony Sidaway unprotected Khmer Rouge (My strategy here will be to block edit warriors. This page has been protected too much, and the warriors blocked all too infrequently. This is a wiki and will be edited.)
• 02:54, 17 September 2005 Curps protected Khmer Rouge (same reason as previous times)
• 09:04, 10 September 2005 Tony Sidaway unprotected Khmer Rouge (It's been weeks and weeks and weeks. No ongoing discussion.)
• 20:03, 10 August 2005 Jayjg protected Khmer Rouge (sterile edit war)
• 18:49, 2 August 2005 Tony Sidaway unprotected Khmer Rouge (Has been protected for a ridiculously long time, no discussion on talk page)
• 15:03, 8 July 2005 Jayjg protected Khmer Rouge (longstanding edit war)
• 02:47, 27 June 2005 Petaholmes unprotected Khmer Rouge (no progress made on the talk page wrt dispute, but pages has been protected for 2+ weeks)
• 03:38, 9 June 2005 Petaholmes protected Khmer Rouge (edit war)

The cause of the protects in every case has been repeated reverts by User:Ruy Lopez and User:Adam Carr. Carr uses provocative language in his reverts, keeping count as follows: "today's rvts: me 1, Communist Party of Wikipedia 1". Some other editors have sometimes been involved, usually reverting Ruy Lopez's edits.

This seems like a classic case of disruption to me. In order to advance the situation, I have warned these two editors in particular, but basically anyone involved in the long term disruption, that I may block them for disruption if they continue to engage in reverting. Ambi disputes this, citing that there is no basis in policy. I am satisfied to put this to the opinion of my fellow administrators. I would like to see Khmer Rouge editable for at least half of the next 100 days and see this as an acceptable way of achieving that end; I would not block the editors for reasons other than continuing their long revert war. On the other hand, Ambi is correct to state that there is no strict basis for such action in policy. Opinions? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

And meanwhile, needless to say, I will not be implementing this policy until and unless I am confident that I have strong support. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

What about the 3RR? Are you saying you will block for just a single revert? Everyking 10:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, for one more in a long history of reverts in a sterile revert war that has crippled an article for 75 out of the past 100 days. I now recognise that this may be considered controversial, so I won't be doing it without community support. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You have my support, Tony. Extraordinary edit wars (such as those lasting many weeks) call for extraordinary measures. [[Sam Korn]] 11:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems like you're not going to do it at this point, but you have my support. Ral315 16:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it might get them to make some concessions in their edits to avoid making true reverts, which would be worth something, but nevertheless I don't like it much because it seems outside of policy. What Finlay says below may be the better course, and ultimately more effective. Everyking 11:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to invoke the disruption clause absent strong evidence of bad faith. Bad manners may prevail, but I think both combatants are trying to improve Wikipedia, in their own special way. I think the RfC/RfAr path would be more appropriate. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

There is some sense in that argument, but I suggest the two in coordination. There's no reason the page should be frozen. [[Sam Korn]] 11:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't support. Either let them fight it out or go though the disspute resolution process.Geni

Looks like substantial opposition to me. I am going to have to find another way. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

This situation will continue until Lopez and all his aliases are barred from editing, as anyone who has been following this dispute (and similar ones at other articles in which I am not involved) knows quite well. It is quite untrue that "both combatants are trying to improve Wikipedia, in their own special way." Lopez is here solely to impose communist POV on articles, as he has stated openly in exchanges elsewhere which I have been sent. In these circumstances the usual Wikipedia conventions, which assume good faith, break down. There can be no resolution until the disruptive element is removed. Until Wikipedia acquires sufficient testicular fortitude to do this, I will continue to defend the integrity of this article with the only means at my disposal. Adam 12:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

fine RFC and arbcom are thataway. This matter is not within the remit of admins.Geni 13:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The content dispute in the article is about topics such as GRUNK. Instead of discussing the content dispute and such things here, Adam Carr decided to go the route of mud-slinging, ad hominems and personal attacks. Perhaps that's why ArbCom adminished Adam Carr a few months ago (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Skyring#Adam_Carr_admonished) in a 6-0 decision for "discourtesy and personal attacks". I'm not really sure how to come to a compromise with someone who stated he would revert any edit I made on the article, no matter what it says. I said we should bring this matter to the mediation committee - he refused. ArbCom suggested to Adam Carr a few months ago that he lay off of personal attacks, but I don't think he has followed their advice. Ruy Lopez 05:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Without going into massive detail, it seems to me that the current version of the article contains quite a lot of opinion rather than fact. That it isn't communist opinion is immaterial, it's still opinion. Thus we cannot blame one person for the current state of the article. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

User:217.132.15.167

This user does nothing but adding links to the site axisglobe.com. The links are related to the topics but are of poor quality (just consider the headline: "THE GERMANY'S ELECTIONS"). I already exhausted my 3RR on Angela Merkel. Maybe you can block him or help reverting his edits. Rivarez 15:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he seems intent on promoting that site. I've reverted all of his additions. Please remember, however, to talk to people before asking for them to be banned - it's only fair to warn him that wikipedia isn't a vehicle for publicising his website. I've left him a spam message, asking him to stop. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

For future reference, use the templates {{spam}}, {{spam2}}, {{spam3}}, and {{{{spam4}} to warn spamming users. [[Sam Korn]] 16:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Multiple sockpuppets for blocked user User:JarlaxleArtemis

User:JarlaxleArtemis (Jeremy David Hanson) was recently banned for disruptive behaviour—see in particular User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/JarlaxleArtemis and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis 2. He has recently created a number of sockpuppet accounts to evade the block. I have flagged the following accounts and request that an administrator block them (if they are not already):

• User:Jeremy Hanson
• User:Jeremy David Hanson
• User:Jarlaxle Artemis
• User:JarlaxleArtimis
• User:Jarlaxleartemis
• User:JarlaxleArtem¡s
• User:Jarlaxle Baenre
• User:░
• User:⅝
• User:۞

I suspect the following accounts are also sock puppets of Jeremy's. My evidence is that they post the same welcome messages as User:JarlaxleArtemis, and that, like User:░, *User:۞, and User:⅝, they recently created useless article stubs for single Unicode characters based on their user names.

• User:۝

These may also be Jarlaxle socks, but I don't have any direct evidence:

• User:¹ (pattern of vandalism, seems to create the same sort of articles as JarlaxleArtemis, single Unicode character user name)

—Psychonaut 16:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked Jones of Cantebury (talk · contribs). He's either a sock of JarlaxleArtemis or a vandal who has only been making personal attacks and shown an unhealthy interest in Jarlaxle. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Jones is either MARMOT or Jarlaxle pretending to be MARMOT. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith related articles under attack - yet again

At least one partisan editor is removing large chunks of content from He whom God shall make manifest and a dozen other pages related to Bahá'í Faith. Suspected problem accounts so far:

• W777 (talk · contribs)
• W778 (talk · contribs)
• W999 (talk · contribs)
• 222.90.193.117 (talk · contribs)

Please someone take an eye on how this develops. jni 09:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Blocked those usernames (indefinitely as socks) and that IP (48 hours) - David Gerard 15:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Merkey

I have given 3 users a timeout of 24 hours based on my view that this is an absurd flamewar which has spilled over onto us from another site. I've blocked User:Gadugi, User:Vryl, and User:Mikemartin.

Gadugi is apparently Jeff Merkey himself. Mr. Merkey called me several times last week to complain about various things on the site. Vryl says that he is normally just a lurker in reading the messageboards where this flamewar normally goes on, but he spent a fair amount of time last night provoking Mr. Merkey (who is easily excited, it seems to me) about Mr. Merkey's Cherokee heritage. Mikemartin is either Jeff Merkey's neighbor who uses Merkey's open wireless connection, or Merkey himself (more likely, based on a comment about his needing to 'phone Mr. Wales again'.

Gadugi left quite a flame for me about me being a "LIAR" and so on, but I don't hold that against him. As I said, he's quite an excitable person. And he was being provoked.

Nonetheless, my advice to all of them is (a) take the flame war back to the message boards and (b) treat everyone with respect while you're at Wikipedia. This is not Usenet, this is not a Yahoo board for flaming, We Are Nice People Who Do Not Behave This Way.

My advice to admins who might get involved is to try to handle everyone involved with "kid gloves" -- they've apparently got their own wars to fight elsewhere. Our goal is a high quality encyclopedia which is neutral and accurate, our secondary goal is to have some peace and quiet while we do our work, so we should encourage all these folks to either calm down or go away or both.--Jimbo Wales 11:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Agree on all points. Fact-based websites are documenting Mr. Merkey's involvement in the biggest set of legal controversies in the computer software business. Many people are interpreting the public information to believe that he is aligned with a group claiming intellectual property which is not theirs, attempting to extort lawsuit-protection money from thousands of companies based on their spurious claim, and engaging in a pump'n'dump securities fraud. Regardless of the truth of these matters, people are engaging in a flamewar which appears to have spilled onto WP's pages, and which does not belong here. WP:NOT a soapbox nor a debate forum. Agree that admins should gently push the problems away rather than get into arguments and rather than expecting tangential users to worry about WP policies. Barno 20:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I wandered into the middle of this controversy because Mr. Merkey, using his User ID and a variety of anon IDs, continues to delete Talk page comments by others and text in the article about himself. He had already been blocked before for this behavior, so I blocked him for a week because he was a repeat offendor. I have received several threats from him, both here on the board and by email. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say anything but someone else agreed. I feel I must disagree; having a calm and civil environment is nearly required to pen an encyclopedia here. The time spent cleaning up after vandals and other various undesirables is time lost working on the encyclopedia itself. That is not a separate priority; it is built in to the first priority. --Golbez 15:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

List of gags in Airplane!

Ok, so. I deleted this in line with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gags in Airplane!. User:Dan100 undeleted without discussion. So I took my own deletion to VfU, and let Dan100 know. The VfU, having had its five days is 14-3 in favour of keeping it deleted. VfU needs majority under current policy, but 14-3 is also consensus under almost anyone's definition, whether you read the debate or count the votes or both. Dan100 has undeleted it again without telling me, or anyone else, or the VfU discussion. I have just deleted it again. Am I doing something wrong? -Splash^talk 16:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

If the article was voted to delete both in AfD and VfU then you are doing right and it should remain deleted. Dan100's user page has a barnstar for taking criticism so maybe he will understand that admins cannot buck consensus. - Tεxτurε 16:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Er, am I missing something here? The AfD appears to be split 6-4, including one "very weak delete"; I didn't think that was usually considered a consensus. Although, I should note that I would've voted delete on that one if I'd noticed it. ...actually, wait, after I typed that, I noticed that the keep at the bottom was an anon, making it 6-3 if that is discounted. Still, a ~66% consensus seems a little surprising to me; that might be what Dan100 was upset over, though I don't know why he wouldn't just say it. Aquillion 04:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

See the bottom of WP:VFU — it is not at all unusual to delete at two-thirds. -Splash^talk 04:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not unusual to delete at 2/3, but I also think it's silly to let the final fate of articles depend so heavily on the random chance of who winds up closing the AfD. Which is to say, sure, deleting at 2/3 is OK, but if an admin has serious doubts about whether it was a fair close, they should undelete - just like blocking for personal attacks is sometimes OK, but othre admins should and do feel free to undblock. Also, 6/4 is not 2/3, it's 60%. Which is to say that there's a very, very good case to undelete this article, which I've done. Snowspinner 15:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

No, the admin should ask VfU what it thinks, rather than just walking around doing as they please. -Splash^talk 15:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

As has been observed many times, VfU displays an astonishing amount of deference towards AfD and towards the closing admin, to the point that, for example, a completely out of process deletion of an article with only 60% delete votes can get a 14/3 "keep deleted." Snowspinner 15:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you think I was completely out-of-process. There're a lot of others who think I was well within process and it's hardly fair to dismiss all of them simply because you disagree with them: they could just as well dismiss you because they disagree with you and I don't suppose you'd appreciate that. Still, I don't think that disliking a process makes it ok to simply circumvent that process whether you're an admin or not. Now, seeing as you have undeleted it, in the face of an overwhelming consensus to keep it deleted, might you at least do something about that bizarre tag that's presently on it and at least re-nominate it at AfD? -Splash^talk 16:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, just so I understand here: Admins can completely ignore policy and procedure at Wikipedia and do what they want to? Fantastic! And here I thought we had to follow rules. --Kbdank71 16:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:IAR ☺ --cesarb 16:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This is another example of why WP:IAR is a giant mistake. It is here being used an an excuse for a violation of policy. Why do we bother to have policy if anyone can simply ignore it and cite WP:IAR. In this case, the contnet was validly deleted at afd, that deletion was confirmed at VfU, so a recreation or undeletion is subject to speedy deletion. DES ^(talk) 16:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you may have missed that ☺ there, I'm sure CesarB isn't implying this is all fine and dandy. IAR is merely a tool for reassuring those afraid of large bodies of rules. Just because you're ignoring all rules doesn't exempt you from the consequences of your actions, so IAR isn't a problem. --fvw* 17:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "☺" is or means, to me it displays as a circle. Is it some sort of smiley? In any case IMO IAR is a big problem. every time I have seen it cited it was to support a violation of policy -- in most cases a blatent violation. I have yet to see it cited in support of bold content editing. I think we would be far better off without it. I propose a new varient of Godwin's law The user who first cites WP:IAR in a policy debate shall be judged to have lost the debate. as IMO and IME such citaion is always made by a party with very weak arguments otherwise. DES ^(talk) 17:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It's U+263A. Sorry if it didn't appear; is the new version (using {{unicode}} and a link) better? --cesarb 17:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

That dispalys as "U+263A". I guess it is some sort of smailey. no matter. Not everyone sees unicode well. DES ^(talk) 17:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

U+263A is the Unicode codepoint for the character, it is meant to display as "U+263A" ☺. As the linked-to article says, it is the codepoint for "WHITE SMILING FACE". --cesarb 17:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way: a somewhat related discussion has just appeared at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules#Problems with this. --cesarb 17:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll defend the use of IAR - there is a time and a place to ignore rules in closing deletion. For example, I made clear (And Jimbo agreed) that there were no circumstances under which Cyrus Farivar would be deleted. And if 100 adherents to a given conspiracy theory showed up to demand keeping an unverifiable piece of POV speculation, I would quickly decide to not care about the numbers on that vote either.

But I don't think this article was a slam dunk keep or a slam dunk delete on its own merits. And I don't think that changing the rules to a 60% consensus threshold is remotely appropriate. What bothers me more, though, is how much this demonstrates the deeply broken nature of AfD and its appeals process - it remains the case that deletion is a MUCH easier outcome to obtain than keeping, which is problematic, because it's also the thing that it seems like we want to be more cautious about. If nothing else, there's a reason we let anyone create an article, but only trusted users delete them - one of them is clearly more dangerous, and yet it's also the one our deletion process favors. Snowspinner 17:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't cite IAR and would not do so in order to delete an AfD article. IAR has no place in that forum. I didn't change any rules. I discarded an anons comment as practically every closing admin would have done, so, at risk of stating the obvious, there was two-thirds to delete. And VfU backs that approach - overwhelmingly. Just because you personally happen to find a process distasteful does not license you to bypass it. -Splash^talk 17:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Though it says basically nothing about outcomes, this little page I have been working on, Wikipedia:AFD 100 days, may offer some small insights into AFD behavior. Dragons flight 17:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Given the backing that VfU has given, I'd be well within reason and within process to delete this again. But refusing to participate in the wheel war that Snowspinner seems angling for I'm not going to do so. Will someone either a)delete it or b)remove that silly VfU tag from it and take it back to AfD, so that we have some semblance of process about this undeletion? -Splash^talk 17:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Why not just wait until the VfU gets closed tomorrow? By the looks of things it'll get deleted by whoever does that. --fvw* 17:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

VfUs last 5 days, it's already finished... (and, at present, it's me clearing out VfU) -Splash^talk 17:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It is, and you do? Ok, then I'll close it, hold on give me a few mins to tally and assess everything. And thanks for your work on closing VfUs! --fvw* 17:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, CesarB beat me to it. For what it's worth, I came to the same conclusion. --fvw* 17:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've already deleted it, you only have to do the closing. If for some crazy reason the result ends up being to undelete, feel free to revert my deletion ☺. --cesarb 18:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

What a mid-air collision! I decided to delete before closing, you decided to close before deleting but noticed my deletion and thought I was going to close it already... Anyway, since both of us agree it's a KD, I see no problem in closing it already. It's gone for long enough. Closed and deleted. --cesarb 18:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Undeleting this article before the VfU closed, in my opinion, shows a staggering amount of disrespect for the editors of Wikipedia, and a staggering amount of disrespect for the consensus process. I'm not going to engage in a wheel war. I'm just going to speak the truth about it: undeleting this article in the face of a VfD close AND an ongoing discussion on VfU was wrong. Nandesuka 17:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The VfD close was a bad close. 60% has NEVER, EVER, EVER been an accepted threshold for consensus. This is point blank fact. The VfU was unnecessary, because Splash was dead wrong to delete. We do not need to go through a vote to undo administrator error. It should simply be done. Period. Snowspinner 18:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Tiresomely, but without the need to invoke my capslock key, I'll point out again that practically no administrator would construe that as 60% because the final vote was from an anon IP. It was two-thirds, as upheld by the VfU. No matter how wrong you think I am, you're hugely outnumbered on that fact. -Splash^talk 18:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. But here we get to the big problem - neither Dan nor I voted in that AfD at all. In my case, it's because AfD is too large for me to follow it accurately. So I suppose this goes to the larger philosophical issue - what do you do in a case like this? There's something kind of perverse about the notion that my opinion on deletion counts only if I happen to notice the page in a five day window. Particularly when noticing the page is quite a chore. And when VfU isn't even entirely determined on its own identity, I'm not sure it's innately the best place for this to be sorted out. Given all of that, my preference would be that we don't go deleting articles as a default, because it's a lot easier to delete something later than it is to undelete it. Snowspinner 18:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

oh that one's easy to sort out. In many parlimentry systems they use a paoring system to match up MPs on oposite sides who for some reson can't turn up to vote. I'm a hardened deletionist. I hardly ever express an opinion on AFD. Therefor your not express an opinion is balanced out.Geni 18:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

caught in a wikislow and an edit conflictThis is an eternal problem, the most obvious solution to which is to cut in about three the number of edits-per-day to Wikipedia and so reduce the AfD load to about 30-50 per day. I'm not sure what the more practical solutions are to be honest. Someone suggested we should just nominate fewer articles to AfD. I'm not at all sure how viable that is given that as the edit rate rises so does the amount of drek that tries to find its way in. I guess some people don't see it as drek. Probably a once-a-day scan of yesterday's TOC for AfD is the easiest way (or the least hard way) to try to feel what's going on. That seems better at least than translating a would-be comment to 'keep' into an action to undelete; the second is a considerably stronger motion than the first. I agree we shouldn't delete articles as a default, and I don't e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Games considered the worst ever was (probably) close enough to two-thirds with enough problems in the article that VfU would have upheld a deletion on the grounds of being within admin discretion. I did not delete it, because I did not judge consensus to have been reached in that case; and the numbers were only a part of my reasoning. Although VfU is looking at changing some of its clothes, I'm not sure that it is broken in the meantime. -Splash^talk 18:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

While I've read the VFU, and realize I am apparently in the minority on this issue, I would like to register my disapproval at the notion that one gets to a magic 2/3 by fully discounting an anon vote and fully counting a "very weak delete". My understanding is that 2/3 is the absolutely the weakest threshold that anyone uses regularly in assessing AFD consensus. In my mind, that means one should look carefully at any and all extenuating circumstance when a vote looks like 2/3. In this case both the weak delete and the anon keep would favor a no consensus outcome. That said, I respect your right to make these decisions and don't think any of the parties should have undeleted it without a discussion and consensus to do so (one that apparently doesn't exist in this case for whatever reason). Dragons flight 18:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a done deal, and I don't think it's sensible to argue about it. The information could easily be included in Airplane! without violating the terms of the GFDL, although the text used in the deleted article could not. There is no suggestion that the article was deletable under the deletion policy, but AfD has grown away from the policy and VFU has grown away from undeleting articles that aren't clearly deletable. So well, let's move on and try to learn from it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The third out-of-process undeletion was very regrettable.The community repeatedly endorsed a contrary decision.

• The AfD was close, but with a clear 67% in favor of deletion it is difficult to see how there wasn't a concensus to delete among that group of AfD participants, especially when one reads the commentary in the AfD. The comments, representing an attempt to reach concensus, really are the heart of the matter in unclear cases, not the votes per se. The comments explaining why a delete decision is the more appropriate make sensible reference to WP policies, explain the role of a sister project (Wikiquote), and give plausible reasons for deletion. The comments in favor of keeping were completely devoid of rationale in 3 instances; in the only one with a reason, the editor claimed there was no rule against humor (which is true, but rather misses the point as no one was saying the List was to be deleted on account of being funny). One keep vote was made by an anon, 70.173.96.213, who voted on the same day of his first edit, and has not made any edits since the day after. I appreciate the difficulty with the "weak delete"; as Sjakkalle has pointed out, however, there is no way to "split" that vote and say it counts as half a vote, or some such. Given that that editor provided a reason for his/her vote, and it is not unreasonable, I think it is fair to count it; what such editors are saying is that of all the options open to them, they're choosing X option, despite some difficulty in deciding that. Of course, if you think otherwise, it is a very fair point to raise in the proper forum—VfU.

• The VfU so overwhelmingly recognized the validity of the AfD decision that it is puzzling it can be interpreted in any other way.
• The comment that the AfD system results in deletion being "a MUCH easier outcome to obtain than keeping" is very difficult to understand. Every keep vote is worth between 2-4 delete votes; thus, not only must there be a majority of good faith editors deciding an article has to be deleted, that majority has to strongly outnumber the opposite decision before any Admin can delete an article. Conversely, even 20-33% of good faith participants asking for a keep is sufficient to ensure that the article will be kept. Under these circumstances, it is hard to understand the claim. The opposite is true: the system is designed to make it much more difficult to delete. And I broadly agree with that principle.
• It must never be forgotten that WP's most important and valuable resource are the editors who take the time and effort to be "regulars". When we summarily ignore their good faith attempts to come to a decision on less-than-straightforward questions, we damage WP. AfD and VfU may not be perfect, but they are the best we have; they represent honest people trying to reach a consensus. Please do not ignore that.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 19:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• • The problematic phrase is "a clear 67% in favor of deletion". 67% isn't clear, we've heard that if just one person had happened on the vote before close it would have been 60%, which is a no consensus keep. According to deletion policy, doubt is good grounds to not delete, and there are substantial grounds here. However a decision to keep at this stage would merely be adding a third perversity onto the perversities of the decision to delete and the decision to keep deleted. I certainly don't want to ignore Splash's close and VFU's decision to endorse it, however perverse I find VFU's determination not to look at the content of the article. VFU is entitled to do that, but they cannot be required to do so. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Very fair comment, Tony. What I meant by "clear 67% in favor of deletion" is exactly that—it is clear that 67% of the participants of this AfD wanted it deleted. I'm not making a judgement on concensus, because as we have all seen (and I'm sure more senior editors such as yourself know this better than I), there is no concensus on a numerical value for concensus. What is clear is that two-thirds did vote to delete, and in so far as two-thirds is a recognized choice as a valid concensus, Splash's decision was not unreasonable. When you say that if even one person happened on that discussion and voted "keep" it would have changed the decision, you're absolutely right. May I point out however, that the same thing can be said of any arbitrary border. For example, I believe you generally take a deletion concensus to be formed only at 80%. Assume that an AfD had 80% in favor of deletion, and you deleted the article. I do not think it would be proper for someone to come along and unilaterally undelete it saying, "If one more person voted keep, you'd have lost your 80% concensus." Where to place the concensus line has always been difficult to decide, and we're going to have to live with that uncertainty for now. However, what is always objectionable is summary undeletions or deletions without any attempt being made to either discuss it with the closer in question, or ignoring VfU [1]. I remain convinced that the VfU process is at heart sound, because I've seen how the editors there instinctively vote to overturn an out-of-process decision even when they personally favor (or do not favor) the article in question. Of course, I'm hoping the current discussions over there bring about an even better process that all of us are happier with. Best wishes—encephalonεγκέφαλον 20:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC) NB [1] I know that there is some controversy with respect to speedies, and have been thinking about your view on this matter. I'm coming around to it, because I quite clearly see the difficulty of making process decisions on non-existent AfDs.

• The way I interpreted the 14/3 vote on VfU was that it reflected community consensus, not on deleting this particular article, but against an admin unilaterally reversing an AfD close without attempting to start a discussion with the originally closing admin. If Dan had chosen to list the article on VfU, or even better, had started a polite conversation with Splash asking about the consensus definition, we would not be in such an acrimonius debate. Note that I'm not saying that the original admin's decision is carved in stone, but that unilateral action reversing another editor's decision-making, without trying to talk about it, is disrespectful. Talk pages exist for a reason. If you don't understand why somebody did something, ASK! moink 20:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• What she said. (Rolls up newspaper, waves it around.) Bad admins, bad! No biscuit! - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

In light of all of this, unless someone shouts a whole lot, I'm going to undelete this and put it back on AfD for a clarifying AfD. Snowspinner 01:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I hope my sarcasm detector is broken, but if not, consider this shouting a whole lot. Considering the VfU outcome, that would be very WP:POINT without the actual point. --fvw* 01:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Shouts. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

/points up. I think the mass of text above this, including the widespread debate on how or whether to factor in the VfU, suggests a certain... lack of resolution. Snowspinner 02:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

/points up Are we looking at the same discussion? Barring yours, I see exactly one opinion that could even remotely suggest that this debate has any life left in it. brenneman^(t)(c) 02:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You may consider this shouting a whole lot too. It is a very difficult interpretation of the above discussion, and the VfU that says there is more than a small amount of support at all for what you propose. And support for it is what matters, not how much you'd like there to be support. Note that even Dragons flight, who said to undelete in the VfU, has said that it should not have been undeleted, and that they respect the consensus of VfU. Of course, I'm presuming, like Fvw, that the suggestion is simply sarcasm. -Splash^talk 02:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that Snowspinner's suggestion is a good one. The vote on VfU showed disapproval of Dan100's behaviour, not necessarily support for the article being deleted. Dan behaved badly; he should have talked to Splash. But what would have happened if he had? Probably the two of them would have agreed to send it back to AfD. The article shouldn't suffer for Dan's poor behaviour, and how could it hurt anyone to send it back to AfD? moink 17:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• moink, you have twice interpreted the VfU to be simply a judgment of Dan's conduct; this is incorrect. The VfU confines itself to judging whether or not the closer made a decision that is supported by WP guidlelines; the participants in this particular VfU overwhelmingly decided that he had. This is not a judgment of Dan's conduct—a distinctly different issue—although if you were to ask the participants of the VfU what they thought of that, many would probably agree with you that Dan should have spoken to Splash first. That they might think so is no reason to disregard what they clearly think of the AfD itself, and of the validity of the closer's decision. Please read the VfU once more: you will note that the comments overwhelmingly pertain directly to the validity of the AfD, not to Dan's action. Undeleting this article (again) will be a troubling gesture of disregard for both the validity of AfD and VfU as established instruments of WP, and of the opinions of editors who take so much time to participate in AfD and VfU, in good faith, in an attempt to ensure the fair application of WP guidelines and policies.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 18:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't make the interpretation twice; I made it once and repeated myself.  :) Anyway, you may be right. There were a few of the comments on VfU with KD that specifically said they were referring to Dan's conduct, and I got the sense that they meant it almost as a way not to reinforce the behaviour. But I may be taking my interpretations too far... what matters is what they said, not my beliefs about what they meant by what they said. I guess I just think that the original AfD vote was very close, and I'm following the maxim "when in doubt, keep talking about it." But I don't have strong feelings on what gets done in this particular case. moink 20:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets in use at Urban75

Notably User:Urban75 Editor, User:William of Walworth, User:Kid Eternity and User:R.I.C.O., all names of users of Urban75, being used to repeatedly revert the article and conduct bizarre arguments with each other on the talk page. Warofdreams talk 17:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

IP is 86.130.212.205, which is a BTCentralPlus DSL, i.e. static. Blocked for a week. Now blocking the associated usernames - David Gerard 14:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Marmot for justice

Just blocked the above user. Keep an eye out on the Newuser log for any other Marmot socks. Could this be possibly related to the recent Jaraxle Artemis block? Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 22:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

And please allow me to point out that I have an uber-cool monobook script for those on Newuser's patrol: User:Func/wpfunc/nupatrol.js. :) Func( t, c, @, ) 22:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's how I block Marmot: using all of func's awesome hacks. Thanks! Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 02:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't mind the committee, there's a new sheriff in town

[For a time contextual discussion of the following please see my talk page.]

This posting is a general complaint and inquiry as to the behavior of a particular administrator as well as administrative abilities in general. I have been a regular contributor for several months now, but as of late (and for the foreseeable future) I am unable to spend much time whatsoever on Wikipedia, and with regular users who carry out the ritualistic aspects of this site it sometimes appears shrift or bizarre that some editors do not carry on conversations with great regularity at any length. A few weeks ago I experienced this problem upon reverting bad edits to an article when another editor continued to revert me until I explained myself (which I did not have time for at that moment and about which there exist no hard, objective rules). Eventually however I found time and the dispute died down.

However, in this particular case I have been caught between an anonymous (half-(?))vandal and an administrator of the site. I first came into contact with the former when he began to troll and vandalize various users' user and talk pages with messages similar to the following:

This guy aka YINever insulted me at GameFAQs and called my grandfather a fascist because he fought for China in the Korean War, yet ironically he supports Francisco Franco in the Spanish Civil War.

When this user would have his edits undone by (non-anonymous) editors he would get quite abusive. [11] [12] Eventually he was blocked by User:Sasquatch for a week for these stunts. He evaded it by using other IPs and appears to have ignored any comments (though he is aware of how talk functions).

I encountered him on a few articles in the midst of this, including a creation of his own, "Anti-Chinese sentiment". While the content is not particularly conducive for the purposes here, I found it to be a rambling (and unsourced) original research piece not worth salvaging for either the purposes of a merge or a cleanup, so I changed it to a redirect of racism (I did something similar to another one of his lovely pieces, Americofascism, which ended up unilaterally deleted by an administrator. The anon became abusive as per usual.

These reverts continued for a few days and eventually another editor, User:TDC (who was in the midst of warding off another vandal who he insulted in turn), took up reverting this anon on Anti-Chinese sentiment and others. Enter Rama. Within a period of two minutes on September 12th, Rama reverted at least four separate articles edited by both the anon and TDC, all of them in favor of the former. Two minutes is barely enough time to commit four reverts, much less read and participate in discussion to determine appropriately which version or what portions was/were superior and why. Reverts at "Anti-Chinese sentiment" continued, however, until some time after Rama posted a message on the talk page, warning users that he would "take appropriate measures" if the article was reverted without discussion. Keep in mind that when he said this, six days had passed since he reverted the article with no explanation on his own part, and none would be forthcoming.

Now, as I discussed earlier, I do not have much time to dick around on this site, and so I mostly scan through my watchlist, as I happened to be at one particular moment. I reverted "Anti-Chinese sentiment" again, and at that moment I had just finished reading the recent posts to a separate talk page and was coming to Talk:Anti-Chinese sentiment (they were next to each other on my watchlist) when I saw the orange "You have new messages" strip. Rama decided to block me for 24 hours for my severe disruption to that page. Barely nine minutes passed between my revert and the message on my talk page informing me I was blocked. Considering it is not likely such a unique template exists and that he likely blocked me before telling me that he had blocked me, it appears he shot rather quickly without even awaiting my response to his comments (which I had not yet seen).

Incidentally, the anon again reverted the article in question with no explanation of his own and in fact with an abuse of the edit summary field to describe my edits as vandalism. He does not appear to have been blocked, despite Rama's warning (Rama has certainly been around since that point) and despite his abusive behavior, trolling, and vandalism. Meanwhile, my block was somehow extended around a day further than the ostensible 24 hours that Rama claimed, as I was not able to access any pages to edit until today.

Now, it is already unclear to me by what justification and right or ability Rama is blocking me for disruption by simple reverts. There exists no policy of which I am aware that says reverts are not allowed or require particular, individual, in-depth, or superficial explanations in any particular place at any time. A much longer and more severe edit war has taken place at Khmer Rouge for which Tony Sidaway proposed a similar solution. The reaction seemed negative or muddled enough that he decided it was not worth it. Rama does not appear to have even bothered asking anyone's opinion, and when challenged on the point he has merely rested on the fact that discretion is entrusted in him as an administrator. For what purpose exactly do we have an arbitration process if it is now up to each individual administrator to decide (and decree rules for, ad hoc) the outcome and participants in content disputes in which they have already involved themselves? And why precisely are vandals (or anons in general) being treated in much better faith than long-term users?

To me this is another example of Wikipedia fetishizing some processes and customs (which I am not able to participate fully in) simultaneous to objective regulations of that process being bypassed or ignored entirely. --TJive 17:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

the block certainly wasn't consitant with Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption.Geni 19:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to, now, does it? The point of discretion applies to violating actual policies, not simply the rules that Rama personally holds to (ethereal or no). --TJive 23:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The block log shows a 24 hour block on your username. You being blocked for up to 24 hours beyond the specified time of the block was probably caused by a known collateral effect of the IP autoblocker. --cesarb 19:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Banned editor User:Robert Blair editing again

It has been brought to my attention that User:Robert Blair, who was banned from editing by the Arbitration Committee on the 14th of March has begun editing again, using his dynamic IP address. He generally edits in the 207.69.13*.* range; here's an old example: [13], and here are some recent examples:

207.69.139.144 contrib 207.69.139.134 contrib 207.69.137.12 contrib 207.69.138.143 contrib 4.230.234.81 contrib 207.69.138.144 contrib 207.69.138.142 contrib 207.69.137.40 contrib 207.69.137.21 contrib

I'll be reverting his edits and blocking the addresses as I see them; assistance in enforcing the Arbitration Committe ban is always welcome. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you basing this on similarity between the edits of Blair and the anons, or something else? Also I should note that Blair was not banned altogether as you imply but just from articles pertaining to certain subjects. Also, the blocks are only supposed to be up to one day (although I don't know what length of blocks you're imposing, that's just a note). Everyking 21:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It's based on the edits themselves, the IP range they are from, and the articles being edited. Blair is certainly banned from editing the articles he was editing, and the blocks were for one day. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

User GORF has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:GORF has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after performing the above verification.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 23:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, are bot blockings now accepted responses to these things? And don't we like to run our bots on separate accounts generally? Snowspinner 23:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

1) yes becuase we are all out of other options (although have on wheels attacks fallen since the school term started?)2.) Getting a second account with admin powers may be more trouble than it is worth.Geni 23:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Back on August 26, Willy (as Dieseldrinker (talk · contribs)) pagemoved at a rate of 75 pages per minute. That's too fast for human intervention to cope with. There were eight more Willy attacks on the same day. Since then it's been quieter... maybe a little too quiet. A separate account would only make sense if the bot needed to be permanent; I'd prefer to believe in an (imminent?) Mediawiki software fix. -- Curps 19:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This is my first experience of the moveblockbot, and I'm very impressed. My only quibble is that it doesn't leave a message on the talk page of the blocked user, which I think it should. I propose something like

This account has been blocked by an automated system, as the pattern of page moves done by this account appears to be suspicious. Wikipedia has been troubled by vandals who who move large numbers of pages quickly, and our use of an automated detector for these is necessary to protect Wikipedia from the inconvenience this causes. This block has been reported to Wikipedia's (largely human) administrators, who are now reviewing it. If they find the block to be in error, it will be removed shortly.

-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia can do weird things when the system is slow (odd error messages and conditions), and posting to a page can pose challenges even for a human. If you were editing a few days ago you know what I mean. It's best to keep it simple. Posting to this page should be sufficient: any invalid block will be removed within a few minutes. -- Curps 19:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

GORF was created only 1 minute after Four Wheels (talk · contribs). I have now gone through and blocked three other potential sleeper accounts created within only a couple minutes of these. All have never been used for editting despite being 8 days old, 2 have weak transportation themes and one has what I would consider an inappropriate user name. They are:

• Red ryder (talk · contribs) "rider"
• Sunnykharkar (talk · contribs) "car car"
• You do not have enough BROWN BRICKS to complete your transaction (talk · contribs)

If people are bothered by this, feel free to unblock. I did go ahead and leave messages on their talk pages in cases these are legitimate and someone wants to protest. Dragons flight 01:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your message, blocked users can’t “contact me at User talk:Dragons flight or another administrator at WP:AN to be unblocked”. Susvolans ⇔ 15:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Doh. Okay, that was a very braindead moment for me. I'll fix it. Dragons flight 15:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"Transwikiing" to non-sister projects

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trap17. I strongly protest the use of the term "transwiki" to refer to the movement of GFDL material to non-Wikipedia projects. The use of the term "transwiki" implies equality among wikis, and could lead to people thinking these other projects are parts of the Wikipedia project. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

As long as it's legal and the receiving wiki knows about it, I don't see a problem. ~~ N (t/c) 00:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I hope we can assume that people who have got as far as AFD understand that mediwiki is no the only game in town.Geni 00:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I once transwikied something to Uncyclopedia without warning them. I hope they don't decide that it's factually accurate and delete it. --Aquillion 02:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Essentially All of Earthlink Blocked

Hey...it seems Jayjg essentially blocked all of earthlink by blocking three rather large ranges (one is /16, one is /17, another one is /23 I think). I don't know these ranges (someone else might) but we've blocked a lot of people. Can someone please look into it and possibly unblock it? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I only see three /24's blocked by Jayjg in the block log, not /16 or /17. And those three /24's are part of an Earthlink range consisting of the entire /16, so it's only a very small fraction of Earthlink. Under those circumstances I'd rather not second-guess Jayjg. Can you provide more details? -- Curps 05:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Please send (from your role address) any evidence of an EarthLink member violating our Acceptable Use Policy to our Abuse Desk. Please be sure to include date, time, timezone, originating IP, and a description, log, and example of the activity.

-Thanks

abuse at abuse dot earthlink dot net

Can we please still unblock the ip addresses? This is as useless as blocking an entire AOL range and the same reasons could go for blocking such a range. BTW, someone may want to respond to the above. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

looking at his block log I think Jayjg already has. Earthlink is becomeing new NTL though (now we've sorted ntl I'd be tempted to put eathlink in it's place on the block page).Geni 23:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, okay...Thanks JayJG if you're reading this. Also, what happened with NTL? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

71.111.156.219, cheese vandal?

I noticed that 71.111.156.219 (talk · contribs) had blanked Basin and was going to warn them when I glanced at their edit history and noticed that they had two other edits, at Pictures of archipelagos, which look very familar in style and talk about cheese. Wasn't there another vandal blocked for putting up that exact nonsense page? --Aquillion 02:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Labyrinth13

Perhaps someone who is not me would have a look at his edits at Palmyra Atoll? This is an author who came to Wikipedia, spammed his website in a few articles, and then edited comments critical of his writing. - Nunh-huh 03:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Newspaper report on vandalism at Simon Wiesenthal

This article refers to vandalism at Simon Wiesenthal, and specifically criticising the fact that denigrating vandalsims have been left to appear in the hiastory log, thus allowing people to read this kind of junk. I am niot ssure to which diffs they are refering but perhaps an admin could delete offending material from the history log? SqueakBox 04:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you think they would be equally angered that some of our Jewish contributors have been listed on the Stormfront website? Look, I get angry about the vandalism around here all the time, but that is the nature of wikis, and unless we stop being a wiki at sometime in the future, there isn't much we can do about it. I'm getting really tired of the blogs, forums, and news outlets that seem to enjoy picking at Wikipedia. We are simply too easy a target for uninformed critisim. Func( t, c, @, ) 04:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Some pretty undisguised homophobia here. I'm sure our vandal thought that calling Wiesenthal gay was an insult, but the Council of Australian Jewry also seems to think that calling him a homosexual was "degrading the history of someone who was known universally for their stand on human rights." 04:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the vandalism had more to do with describing him as a pedophile in pretty graphic detail if I remember correctly. GabrielF 12:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This is absurd and I don't think they even grasp the nature of the encyclopedia. They seem to think this stuff has some kind of stamp of approval and don't seem to understand that we actively fight this stuff to the best of our ability, and can't help it if a vandal edit stays up for a few minutes before somebody catches it. If somebody wants to look through page histories searching for old vandalism to indulge their tastes for vulgar juvenile humor, then let them; there's no reason we need to go to the extra effort to clean all that stuff out. "Take action against the website"? What? As if we condone vandalism about Wiesenthal? Somebody write them an angry letter, or several, please. Everyking 05:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, some vandals will probably pick up on this and realize that some people will blame the encyclopedia in general for vandalism (and not even think of it as vandalism, but as information that we are deviously trying to pass off as serious), and step up the vandalism as a result. So I think the article is very irresponsible. Everyking 05:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Below is my email exchange with Josh Landis, the guy quoted in the article. I won't claim that my email is particularly well-written, given that it was sent at about 2AM local time, but I did my best to defend wikipedia:

Dear Sir,

As a frequent contributor to the Wikipedia article on Simon Wiesenthal, I was disappointed to read your attacks on our efforts in the press. I and other wikipedia editors do our best to create articles that are informative and fair. The beauty of wikipedia is that anyone can contribute to an article. The upside of this is that wikipedia is an ever-expanding resource containing a vast quantity of information presented in (often) highly readable articles. Wikipedia has become a crucial resource to millions of people as a result of our efforts. Obviously, there are always going to be vandals, either children who insert inappropriate words in articles or sophisticated neo-Nazi groups who try to insert their propaganda and disguise it as legitimate. However, many dedicated editors maintain constant vigilance over the website, vandalism is almost always reverted within five minutes and frequent vandals are often blocked from editing. We put in a lot of time and effort trying to make wikipedia a good resource, that occasionally means lengthy battles with other editors who try to insert a point of view and sophisticated research to determine exactly who is committing acts of vandalism. For example in June I successfully fended off efforts from wikipedia users to include links to neo-Nazi websites in the Simon Wiesenthal article, and many other editors have had similar battles. In the specific vandalism you complained about in The Age, I determined that the vandals were using computers in Illinois public schools. I decided not to ask that these computers be blocked from editing wikipedia because I didn't want to prevent thousands of people in Illinois from being unable to contribute to our site. Instead, I decided to trust the wikipeida user community to immediately revert inappropriate vandalism, and this approach has worked. Thanks to the efforts of dozens of contributers from around the globe the article on Simon Wiesenthal keeps improving in quality, and vandalism is almost never present for more than a few minutes. If you investigate the history of the Simon Wiesenthal article you will see that this is the case. As a Jew, I completely understand your frustration at anti-semitic comments on such a popular website, but the problem is not with wikipedia itself but with humanity as a whole. We can't control the fact that there are people in this world who want to spread vile and hateful propaganda, but we are doing everything in our power to make sure that our website is free of such content. I really wish that you had taken the time to explore wikipedia rather than denounce and threaten us in the press.

Yours,

(wikipedia user GabrielF)

Let me make a few things clear:

a) The article does not include any comments by me which are critical of

wikipedia. I'd never used it before, and I didn't say anything

derogatory about the site to the journalist.

b) the comments on the site were grossly offensive. While I appreciate

that you and others work to remove offensive material, it remains on the

cache of the site and should be permanently removed.

c) this council has successfully brought two legal actions against

websites for material which is racially vilifying of Jews. I do not

regard this case as being akin to those, nor do we have any intention of

treating it the same. It is not unreasonable that a Jewish group would

protest at this material the day after the man passed away, especially

considering the level of traffic on this site.

d) we believe that wikipedia, while not being responsible for the

material, has a responsibility to prevent abuses by blocking or banning

those who cause offense.

I think if you review the article, and the comments attributed to me,

you will see that you may have overreacted in relation to the position

of this council.

Regards,

Josh Landis

Executive Officer

Executive Council of Australian Jewry

I'm curious to hear what people think. GabrielF 12:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Two points.

1. What is the relation of Josh Landis's letter to your letter? Which one of them is earlier and which is later? Was Josh Landis's letter addressed to you or the newspaper?
2. I just love it when outside critics condemn an entire effort for one fault. Surely they implored their readers never to visit, or at least never to contribute to, such a shameful evil anti-semitist site as Wikipedia? — JIP | Talk 12:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I emailed him, using the address on his organizations website, he emailed me back. Sorry, I should have specified that. GabrielF 12:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

In regard to Landis's points:

1. No response needed.
2. AFAIK, such a removal would violate the GFDL. And anyway, Wikipedia is constantly being archived by search engines such as Google and mirrored by other websites. We have no control over the caches of those websites. Someone might search for "Simon Wiesenthal + Wikipedia" on Google and see a result calling him homosexual, but when he clicks on it, the article revision can't be found. Is this still our fault?
3. Does this mean the council won't take legal action towards Wikipedia? In that case, it's a good thing, because Wikipedia is not centralised, there is no official agreement on its contents or opinions, it's all a bunch of independent contributors.
4. No it doesn't have such a responsibility. No one on Wikipedia is obligated to do anything. It is entirely voluntary. That said, I fully support blocking users who vandalise the Simon Wiesenthal article. In fact I remember once doing so myself. — JIP | Talk 12:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

in thoery we could remove it without worrying about the GFDL sinece selective undelete doesn't remove the names of any authors. The real problem is one of scale there is some much vandalism of that type that we don't have the resources to remove it. Legaly he woulnd't have much of a case. The content is legal under US law. Worst case senario is that Jimbo and current comitte memebers would be unable to vist australia. As to the final point we probably would have a resposibilty to remove material that is illegal or libelus under US law once it had been pointed out to is.Geni 13:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

If you ask me, insisting that we delete all the vandal revisions from the history would actually give the vandals an advantage: we would be forced to go to far more trouble to clean up after them than usual. Ironically, such insistence on removing vandalism from the page history could mean more vandalism on the current revision. Everyking 14:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

particularly when you factor in the increased rate of admin burn out.Geni 14:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well we could try having a "rollback & delete" button... Dragons flight 14:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Based on my reading of his letter, he isn't threatening legal action so much as making it clear that he finds the vandalism unacceptable in the most powerful terms. Personally, I think we can certainly remove some particularly vile vandalism from the page history, but I don't think we should make a point to remove all of it. JP is right that the stuff will remain in the google cache anyway, in addition I think that its useful to have a record of serious vandalism so we know what current vandals have been up to in the past. I also think recording vandalism is useful to the article as well, it shows that (in this case anti-semitism and homophobia) do exist in today's world and that society doesn't find those POV acceptable. I don't think it serves the Jewish communities interests to simply erase all anti-semitic writings, I think its better to have a record of what the anti-semites have said and then three minutes later a record of someone deleting them as petty vandalism and not even worth three sentences on the talk page. This whole argument is an interesting reminder of just how far-reaching our actions on wikipedia are. A particular edit might only last three minutes before its reverted, but with the article linked on the main page several hundred (or thousand?) people might see that edit in those three minutes. GabrielF 15:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Another article on this which might give you a laugh... Wikipedia attacked by Nazis. The real howler, though:

It is the second time that Wikipedia has been targeted by vandals with a cause.

After the death of the pope an anonymous user replaced the image of incoming pope Benedict XVI with the evil emperor from Star Wars. Given it is so easy to do, it is perhaps more surprising that it does not happen more often.

Certainly a surprise to me. Aquillion 15:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I am sure I remember a case where Jew produced rascist sites on the Google search, then wikipedia Google bombed and got our site to number one, and if true we clearly have a positive history to be proud of in fighting rascism, etc (which I think we do). As Everyking says, we do our best, though I absolutely agree with Dragon flight about the rollback & delete" button, and that a policy change for giving that to users with a certain number of edits is needed. Were they to try to sue wikipedia these people should be opposed on the moral grounds that it is an attempt to shut down wikipedia, open source collaboration and freedom on the internet. Weisenthal fought for freedom, and one wonders what he would think of people who want to take the majority of people's freedom to edit away because of the behaviour of a tiny minority. One does hope the person who photographed the wikipedia page had already removed the offending material, and weren't in fact merely looking for publicity for their cause. Almost every famous person who dies gets vandalised, and if you see someone famous has just died add them to your watchlist. Yet the interest these people generate by dying invariably transforms the article, which in almost cases is a fitting tribute which would be lost if such articles were protected in these post death moments. If we had locked Pope John Paul II (as a few people wanted) noone would have put Darth Vader pictures briefly in the article but the article itself would be considerably poorer than it is, SqueakBox 16:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Talking of the jew article it appears it may have slipped off people's watchlists. It got vandalised today and it took 9 minutes to be reverted.Geni 16:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Screw them. I like how they discussed legal action with the paper before discussing it with Jimbo. That's always a nice indicator that they're lawsuit-happy, they want some publicity, nothing more. Let me reiterate that - All they care about in this circumstance is getting publicity for their organization and words. If they actually cared about getting the statements removed, they would have contacted the Wikimedia Foundation before contacting the press. (Note: It's possible I've missed some mention from someone that states that they did, in fact, contact our lawyers. If so, disregard this whole paragraph) The solution is simple - Tell these chaps that when they can get Google to remove antisemitic links and caches from its search engine, we will ponder doing the same. --Golbez 17:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Most likely wikipedia would have grounds to sue the website for claiming that wikipedia has denigrated Weisanthal when we have done nothing of the kind, SqueakBox 17:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia ever actually do anything? Like I said, all we are is a bunch of individual, independent editors. There is no official Wikipedia opinion or stance on issues like politics, religion, etc. Thus, Wikipedia can never denigrate, or praise, anyone. Only its editors can. — JIP | Talk 19:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

the wikimedia foundation could in thoery.Geni 20:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Also I don't think the comparison between us and Google is fair. After all we expend a lot of energy fixing the vandalsims on our site whereas Google do nothing to correct their mistakes. So while we keep a good eye on Jew Google still put Jewwatch at No3 for their search engine here, SqueakBox 17:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually it's the number 2 result. The Wikipedia article on Jew is the first one. The only link above the Wikipedia article hit is a link back to Google itself. — JIP | Talk 05:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

No2 is our article on Jewwatch, and thus subject to our POV policy, watching, etc. No3 is the webpage of the antisemitic group, SqueakBox 05:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you seeing the same results as I am? Here is what came up when I clicked the external link less than a minute ago:

Offensive Search Results

www.google.com/explanation We're disturbed about these results as well. Please read our note here.

Jew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion of the difference between Jewish religion and ethnicity, with notes on the Jews' history, beliefs, and culture.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew - 101k - Cached - Similar pages

Jew Watch

Keeping a close watch on Jewish communities, organizations, monopoly, banking, and media control worldwide.

www.jewwatch.com/ - 32k - Cached - Similar pages

This quite clearly lists Google's own explanation page as the first link, the Wikipedia article on Jew as the second, and JewWatch as the third. — JIP | Talk 06:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The Google link is a "sponsored link" that Google purposely put there to say "We're sorry". On the UK version, Wikipedia is first, followed by Jewwatch; on the US version, Jewwatch is first, followed by Wikipedia. Ral315 01:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, this gets back to what Angela and I were both suggesting last week, that we need a way to delete vandalistic/libelous edit summaries and to avoid having vandalistic/libelous article titles appearing publicly in the deletion log. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schalken Fur Kreativitat

Lots of vandalism (changing others' votes) going on here. Could someone keep an eye on this, I don't have the time. Thanks. (Sorry I'm not logged in.) 134.10.44.224 07:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Dobby

A strange section "Dobby in Australia" has been popping up into this article. I have reverted that section away three times now, so I won't touch it anymore unless anyone agrees with me that it is pure vandalism. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd say pure vandalism/attack. --Doc (?) 12:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Emico and the Iglesia ni Cristo article

194.143.190.8 (talk · contribs), who is strongly believed to be a sockpuppet or sockpuppet-impersonator of Emico (talk · contribs), (an advocate for the article's subject who has been banned as a result of an ArbCom decision) has recently made many substantial edits, supporting his view, to the Iglesia ni Cristo article. Each counter-edit or revert has rapidly been reverted back to his version. TheoClarke (talk · contribs) is an sysop who's been handing Emico's situation for a while, but has not been around to deal with the latest outbreak. I also believe this person may be the same person as 72.25.91.250 (talk · contribs) who's only notable edit is a post at Emico's talk page, asking Emico to check an email he sent. Please do whatever it takes to bring this article back in control. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 08:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Jordon Capri

Jordan Capri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), present AFD, previous AFD.

Jordan Capri was an adult movie actress. About a month ago, 2004-12-29T22:45Z (talk · contribs) added detailed information on her real name, city of residence, places of employment, and present college. Such information as would be very useful to a stalker and which I consider to pose a legitimate personal risk to the individual in question. At present this information (except for real name) has been again removed from the article. (Please look at the history of the article for the information in question, I do not want to quote it here).

Maybe this information is accurate. It's cited source is what is identified as her blog. As of sometime yesterday all entries from the blog were removed, and as of this morning it seems that three have been restored, but there does not appear to be any verifiable personal information contained therein (except that she resides somewhere in Arizona). Even if verifiable and accurate, I'd still question whether the information 2004-12-29T22:45Z was appropriate.

2004-12-29T22:45Z has twice reverted when anons have attempted to remove this information. His justification is on the article's talk page. Now an individual claiming to be Jordan herself has shown up at the present AFD to say:

I have been having issues recently with "fans" coming into my work. Just this past Monday someone came in asking for my autograph & said he found me on THIS site. First of all, on my MySpace page, I never gave my last name away nor the engraving shop's name, because I did not want people to find out my real name. This is a serious issue; I could have potential salkers, rapists, ect. now!! What if some crazed fan comes in, waits for me to leave late at night, then follows me home!? Since I found this thing I've been scared to death! Please delete it for the sake of my safety not to mention potentionally being fired from my jobs from the flood of phone calls/visits I've been receiving there. I'm begging you, please take this down.

I don't know if this is accurate, but it does strike me as entirely plausible.

I personally feel that the article should be kept, under the general view that most well-known porn stars can justifiably have articles, but I am raising it here because I would like to selectively delete all versions of the article containing the details 2004-12-29T22:45Z added, as I believe such information poses a legitimate danger to this woman and we should not keep any accessible version of it. From a GFDL standpoint, the present software allows anyone to look at the authorship (but not content) of deleted edits, so the names of everyone involved would be maintained, and I do not believe it poses a copyright problem. (If it does pose a copyright problem, I would be just as happy to simply delete everything since August 20th and start with the most recent version not having these issues.)

Other opinions?

Dragons flight 16:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No opinion on this matter in specific, but I also have noticed problematic editing coming from that user. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the links to her "new life" and will defend any attempt to replace them. I find the motives of the oddly named chap who originally added them heavily distasteful and if he has a history of this, he should be dealt with. --Golbez 17:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Go on and remove the information from the history. The revisions can be undeleted later if it turns out to be a mistake, so there should be no harm done by removing it. --cesarb 18:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that. --Golbez 18:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think somebody else has done it now. You delete the article and then undelete selected revisions.

• 18:43, 21 September 2005 Dragons flight restored "Jordan Capri" (32 revisions restored)
• 18:41, 21 September 2005 Dragons flight deleted "Jordan Capri" (deleting to purge personal details from history)

--Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

And here I was just coming to say that it was done. Dragons flight 18:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I had a look around and there are other issues with this kind of thing. Someone had put the alleged real name of Tawnee Stone (from the same website group as Jordon) in her article and that talk page. If we are going to be consistent that should probably get yanked from those places as well. Note also that the AfD on Jordon's page also has her alleged name (as allegedly posted by the model herself requesting the info be removed), since those are archived later it should probably be yanked from there somehow... but doesn't every instance of the history since then also have that info? This whole thing seems rather problematic technologically, I don;t envy you gys trying to sort it all out. DreamGuy 21:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Just the real name should be a lot less problematic than "her real name, city of residence, places of employment, and present college". --cesarb 02:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but due to the original issues I feel a certain amount of blowback is appropriate. Now is it incumbent upon people to prove that such information is necessary and encyclopedic, not simply "well it's true, pop it in thar". --Golbez 04:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Please check my comments on the Tawnee Stone discussion below. Vizjim 08:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Jordan Capri's porn career, even though it is over, is notable enough. The posting of her real name is not reason for deletion of the article - it's reason for removal of her real neal name from it. We don't have to ask notable people's permissions to write articles about them. But we do have a duty to protect this former porn star from possible stalkers. "Her real name is in her blog" is worthless as a reason for keeping the personal information in, as her blog doesn't mention Jordan Capri. People know Jordan Capri, and they know this woman. What they don't know is that they are the same person. — JIP | Talk 13:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Polonism

Molobo (talk · contribs) has twice removed the AfD tag, citing in justification the article's previous listing in July, which ended in a strong "Keep" result.

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Polonism
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Polonism

--Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

He appears to have been acting in good faith. He's now made a compromise edit of pointing out the earlier vote on the top of the page. I don't think an admin need do anything at the moment. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think that sentence is appropriate as the first line of an article, which was why I removed it (and was quickly reverted). They already have the AfD tag, and the article is quite enough of a mess without including non-article material in it too. Still, if that's the only way the fight might simmer down, the note may as well stay. -Splash^talk 20:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I looked at it later and it seemed to be gone. My opinion is that he should be politely asked not to put comments in the articles. I added a link to the first AfD debate to the new debate myself. Looks like most people are agreed that this article is still a keeper, even if the problems remain. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Tawnee Stone

The Tawnee Stone article has personal information which could endanger the girl, and ought to be purged for the same reasons as Ms. Capri's information was purged (see the Jordan Capri incident report). As with Ms. Capri, Ms. Stone has left the adult business and just wishes to put that part of her life behind her and not have to worry that some internet stalker will look her up in Wikipedia and show up at her work or home. For crying out loud, what does any of this belong in an encyclopedia for?!? --Murple

I think you are going over the top. There is no info that would identify her now. The article doesn't state her real name or her current address. How would a stalker turn up at her home because of this? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It doesnt state her real name etc now because I editted them out. They're still in the past revisions as well as the discussion page. Along with her real name, there are names of her family members, links to pictures of her brother's school sports teams, etc. --Murple

I can't see it in the history. Can you provide a link? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind it's on the talk page. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, not even sure that her real name needs to be removed, but certainly the scholl she went to would not help a stalker find her now. As long as her current address is kept private, we have IMO done all we should to protect her. (Same as with regular actresses) Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

In it's present form Tawnee Stone's article is not an urgent disaster, so okay, let's pause and talk about this. In my opinion, these articles should not include any personal details about the real life actress. My opinion is based on the view that "Tawnee Stone" is not in fact a person, but rather a role created by the studio and marketing firm responsible for this persona. Certainly there are any number of fictional personas that are notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, e.g. Han Solo. But unlike Star Wars, where the credits and marketing connect Harrison Ford to the role, the adult entertainment industry goes to considerable lengths not to reveal the true identities of their entertainers. Generally, there is no verifiable link between someone like Tawnee and the actress that plays her. And, even if there is some obscure chain of reference that makes if verifiable, then we still shouldn't be drawing the connection as it is legitimately dangerous to these women. Without drawing a connection between their real world identity and their stage name, I can't see that there is any verifiable to say where she used to work or went to school. What's more, as these facts belong to the actress, and are not part of the persona of Tawnee, I would argue they don't belong in an article on Tawnee anyway. Of course, porn stars can choose to forgo their anonymity, but no one is making that case here. Dragons flight 22:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The information in her article all seems to be flimsy anyway, pretty much "some dude on the internet who says he used to know her"... So even if there WERE some valid reason for it to belong on here, it's hardly solid verifiable information. The discussion page on the article has all sorts of info identifying various people as her brothers and identifying where they go to school... whether or not they are actually her brothers, that information should not be visible to the public. --Murple

The problem is that there is no hard-and-fast rule on this sort of personal information. If there were a rule that an administrator could simply delete such information from both the page (or talk page) and the history, that would be fine - however, at the moment it all needs to go to here, and be discussed, and a big hoo-hah gone through before such deletions can be made. While I hold no particular brief for those who choose to sell their bodies for cash, I think that two important principles need to be respected here: 1) Wikipedia is not a rapist's directory; 2) Wikipedia is not in the business of haunting people with their childish mistakes. I'm still pretty new here, so I don't know how one goes about setting up/suggesting rules that would allow for speedy erasure by admins, so thought I'd bring it here. Vizjim 08:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Tiffany Teen's real name is also in her history: I guess it's common practice. Which makes the need for agreed ground rules all the more pressing.

As a precedent, we have the real names of at least a few people who might prefer they were not public information, such as Natalie Portman. Is Portman's surname now a matter of public knowledge? Pakaran 18:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Considering the IMDB has that, and the IMDB has a lot more commercial oversight than we do, I'd say that one's kosher. The key is, most of these porn star names are collected by people who are either stalking or trying to stalk these girls, or simply by someone doing a tremendous amount of original research - Either way, not appropriate, and not necessary. Put another way - if they wanted their real names to be known, do you think we'd have to search some backwater porn chat forum to find out about it? If that's the only place we have to find their name, then it's not appropriate. NOR and V apply. --Golbez 18:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

For perspective, google on Natalie+Portman+Hershlag gives about 1000 sites. By comparison, Wikipedia and one mirror were the only places google found identifying Ms. Capri's real name. Us and mirrors account from more than half of the 32 sites giving Tawnee's birthname. Dragons flight 19:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Natalie Portman probably has significantly less chance of problems arising, as she can probably afford personal security. A college kid who made some judgement errors and got mixed up in porn probably doesn't have any real protection. There's also not much real chance that Natalie Portman's life will be ruined if people find out she's Natalie Portman. These porn girls, however, may want to put their past behind them and having this kind of crap being publicly linked to their real identities may cost them jobs, friends, etc. And the fact that the Tawnee Stone actress was not only exposed but had her (supposed) brothers exposed... that's a very bad precedent. I'd hate to think that there are some guys out there now being hassled with "dude I saw your sister having sex on the internet" because someone saw them in whats supposed to be an encyclopedia. In the case of Jordan Capri, the girl's family business was exposed and she was getting "fans" showing up and calling at the shop. Theres lots of different angles here, and we need a policy in place before something really bad happens to somebody. There's the risk that exposure gives to the lives and livelihoods of the girls in question. Theres the fact that much of the information is very flimsy (in the Tawnee Stone case, its basically some guy on an internet forum who says he knew her from an IHOP in his home town). There's the relevance issue in that saying what school some girl who played the role of Tawnee Stone or Jordan Capri went to so and so school is little better than tabloid gossip about semi-fictional people. There's also the question of do we want Wikipedia serving as a porn directory, which I dont think it should. At the very least, the private life details of these girls and their relatives ought to be purged from public view. Murple 19:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

By the by, I think there are pretty firm policy grounds for blocking the creep who's been posting this information: Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Examples, the one about endangering other users. It seems to me that if exposing another editor to possible danger is a reason to ban, then exposing a non-editor to now-demonstrable danger from stalkers ought to be a reason as well. (And actually, one of the people in question has edited Wikipedia at least once. . .). Is this a good idea? —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

See Also: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Personal_details_of_notable_people and the to be written Wikipedia:Divulging_personal_details Dragons flight 19:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Think an admin can go in and make all the personal details in the Tawnee Stone article & discussion invisible to the public as was done for Jordan Capri? I removed them from the article, but theyre still in revision history, and I'm not sure if I can edit them out of discussion. Murple 20:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Went in and removed the stuff from the talk page myself, still in the edit logs however, and likely to be put back unless the admins act. Murple 21:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The edit logs for Tawnee are now free of personal details. Dragons flight 00:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Murple 18:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The rule

What is the rule in reference to deleting your own comments from other users' talk pages? 205.217.105.2 21:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Striking them through rather than deleting is usually considered the polite thing to do. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is unsure of what that means:

<s>Hello world</s> → Hello world

-- Curps 21:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• • All right, thank you. 24.54.208.177 00:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

User:LevKamensky

I have blocked LevKamensky (talk · contribs) indefinitely for making threats to vandalize Wikipedia. Following my block, he added the following to his Talk page - [14] - indicating his intention to continue vandalizing. If he adds any of my articles for AfD, under any ID, I intend to delete them from AfD without discussion. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Good call. I had previously blocked LevKamensky (talk · contribs) for the duration of an AfD he was involved because of his disruptive behavior. The AfD was closed today and LevKamensky unblocked. It didn't take him very long to start vandalizing again by sticking AfD notices on a number of good articles. He seems to be unaware of the concept of lack of ownership of articles, or even basic concepts like Wikiquette. His campaign of harassment against Zoe has been particularly atrocious. --MarkSweep✍ 02:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Good show. A little late perhaps, but still good. --Golbez 04:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Same for me. If any of the articles I created or contributed to ends up on AfD and I have reason to believe that Lev is behind the nomination, I will immediately delete those nominations from AfD, no questions asked. Aecis 16:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Be careful not to delete valid requests. If in doubt, er on the side of caution. I'm pretty sure valid articles will survive AFD anyway. Did anyone explain to him that once submitted articles are no longer your property? - 131.211.210.12 07:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

That was me. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• • He isn't planning on listing his pages for deletion, he's planning on listing my pages and the pages of other people's he's listed, for deletion. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

User:203.173.8.12

Blocked for 24 hours due to vandalism and removal of WP:VIP entries. The user was changing information on the Government of Australia article, specifically changing the fact that the country is a constitutional monarchy into one that states that Australia is a republic. Based from what I've read and heard, this seems like a common User:Skyring argument. Would someone more experienced in these matters check out the edits, and see if this is indeed a sock? If it is, the ArbCom ban would be reset as of today. Thanks. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 00:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

He/she is certainly an annoyance. Similar to Skyring, although the use of the plural recalls Gollum. The provider doesn't seem right, and there seems to be a history of abuse independent of Skyring's depradations. This fellow is annoying (and destructive) enough to be blocked in his own right. Mackensen (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Skyring has been editing from 203. IP's of late, so this this is very likely him. Even if not, the editor was correctly blocked.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a note, a POV edit is not necessarily vandalism. Of course given the history of controversy over this it should be discussed prior to any changes. Everyking 06:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

True enough, but in this case it's a POV edit that's also factually incorrect, possibly made by a hard-banned user. Mackensen (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Alabambam

• Alabambam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)... someone want to deal with this?--Copyeditor 03:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, absolutely a troll. --Calton | Talk 03:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

He's outta here. --Golbez 04:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

And next time, please don't wait two weeks. You're forgiven if you just noticed him now, but there was no reason for this guy to rove unchecked for two weeks. --Golbez 04:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Writers Cramp aka LaLa

I believe that two users are probably the same person. Given the evidence--in-your-face user page, bad attitude, copyvios, which pages are being edited, blanking user talk page, etc., and the fact that User:WritersCramp appeared when User:LaLa was blocked and LaLa reappears when WC is blocked (currently)--I wonder whether anything can or should be done about it-- Elf | Talk 02:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The two accounts certainly seem to edit many of the same articles. Exploding Boy 02:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

LaLa is now proceeding to personal attacks and reverting legitimate edits. See [15]. Elf | Talk 19:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I see from a note on another user's page that LaLa is now blocked but based on comments on LaLa's talk page, where I got no response here. OK, obviously I don't know the process for raising this stuff--this page seemed like the right one but apparently not. What's this page for, then? Elf | Talk 15:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

He's now created another account, [[User::PigShit]], at least, i think we can safely assume this is his account. - Trysha 21:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I have been monitoring these users for some time, and believe based on edit histories, articles worked on, and time of account usage and editing patterns, as well as distintictive comments on talk pages that this user(s) employs a number of sockpuppets. See [[16]] for a (probably incomplete) list of suspects. Fawcett5 11:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

school encouraging vanity pages?

User:DevShah2004 created the vanity page DevShah2004, which I deleted. When he asked me over AIM as to why I deleted the "article", I told him that it was deleted because it was a blatant vanity page. He told me that it was a school assignment. I find this very bothersome. --Ixfd64 05:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

What school? --FOo 05:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

He didn't tell me. :\ --Ixfd64 05:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, gee, you think the very same autobiography (now on his userpage) might help: he attends the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, where he is a sophomore studying computer engineering.--Pharos 06:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I seriously doubt even Tech gives out lame assignments like creating vanity articles on Wikipedia for Computer Engineering. --06:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Argh, that was really obvious, and I didn't even notice it. *slaps himself* --Ixfd64 06:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

death threat by user on Kinko's public computer

Not too long ago, I blocked 69.64.213.146 (talk · contribs) for user page vandalism and personal insults. I blocked him for only one hour, as he claimed that he was using a computer from Kinko's. [17] Afterwards, he made the account 234234 (talk · contribs) just to make a death threat on my talk page. [18] That earnt him an indefinite block on that account. --Ixfd64 07:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely uncalled for... this guy deserves a lifetime block.  ALKIVAR™ 08:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I would also instantly block anyone who made death threats. I bet that guy doesn't have the foggiest where you live but merely wanted to intimidate you. — JIP | Talk 08:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Helen Clark

I have removed a couple of posts by User:Spawn Man from this talk page. Spawn Man does not like the New Zealand Prime Minister, but his attacks on her are not useful in developing the encyclopedia article and veer towards making personal attacks on other editors, and inflammatory material, such as comparing Clark to Hitler. I've invited Spawn Man to reply here.-gadfium 09:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

And reply I shall. If I recall, the talk pages of articles were to discuss both personal opinions & ways to expand & improve their articles. My articles started off as helping towards the Helen Clark article, mainly by myself plainly stating the question; "Why has no one put on the article that Helen Clark stopped grace before meals". Shouldn't we, being part of the wonderful wikipedia, strive to post the full & honest facts on its articles? It is after all an actual fact that she did infact stop grace before parliamentary meals. Or are we only going to include half facts on wikipedia? Would you find it appropriate if on a German site, that they ommitted the fact that Hitler killed over 6 million Jews? Absolutely not. As wikipedians, we should aim to post both negative & positive facts on all articles, & let people who have opinions on these talk freely on the talk pages. Just because I don't like the New Zealand Prime Minister, doesn't mean you have to delete my posts because you think differently. I wouldn't dream of deleting your posts because your opinion differed from mine. And if you think that people only use talk pages for discussing ways to improve articles, I would suggest you rethink this statement, because I have seen on many occasions, talk pages filled with personal views & thoughts. I will glady retract my insulting comments towards the other users, (especially the Australian who thought he knew more about NZ politics than a NZer), & if you ask of me, I will gladly send a personal letter of apology to him/her. But I utterly detest to my personal viewpoint, which I hold so dear, to be quashed & undermined by being deleted. You could have handled it better too. For example, you could have just deleted the rude comments about Helen, but left the rest, as I spent much time typing those words. Plus, I like to write, as you call them, "Lengthy" posts. I don't know where this goes from here, but I'd like my posts returned (minus the rudeness), & in return I will send apologies to the users I may have offended. Thank you for the chance at letting me having my say against this. Spawn Man 10:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The comments by Spawn Man (talk · contribs) were removed by Gadfium (talk · contribs) in this edit.

I would strongly encourage Spawn Man to review our policies on personal attacks and civility, and note that it is never appropriate to call other editors 'Stewpid'. Spawn Man is more that welcome to dislike Helen Clark and to discuss criticisms of her on the article talk page. I would also suggest that Spawn Man review our article on Godwin's law, and note that comparisons to Hitler almost never lend credibility to an argument. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I will not get involved in the discussion about what information an article about Helen Clark should or should not contain. I will only say this to Spawn Man: I find your comparing not mentioning Helen Clark stopping grace before parliamentary meals to not mentioning the Jews killed in the Holocaust totally abject, tasteless, irrelevant, not constructive, sickening and appalling, and any other negative adjective I can think of. Please learn to present your argumentation more decently. Aecis 16:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, I was just making a comparison!! I never said I condoned what Hitler did. But my point was that you wouldn't like it if someone ommitted that information due to the fact that it was negative towards Hitler. But that was exactly the response I recieved: "Why put that on there? Not only is it untrue, it is negative towards Helen Clark", or somewhere along those lines. No need to get all puffed up over a comparison Aecis. My main objection is, is that you Gadfium, deleted my more factual posts about her, such as her depleting our air force etc, but left my more vulgar comments about her on there? You seem very inconsistant... I admit it got a bit out of control, but as I have said, & will say many a time more, I dislike a person who assumes they know more about my country than myself. For an Australian to argue with matters of my government , presuming he is right, gets my blood boiling beyond belief. I wouldn't dream of arguing with matters of his government, assuming that I was right. I would expect the same response myself. If you gladly refer myself to a forum other than Helen Clark's talk page, on wikipedia, where I can freely rant on about Helen, I will send apologies to anyone that I have offended & remove all my posts from her talk page. On further note, I will take all of your advice under careful advisement. I will apologise now if I've offended anyone about my Helen/Hitler comment; I certainly did not mean it in the way that some took it. I will also apologise if I have offended anyone over my comments on Helen Clark's talk page. I honestly thought that you could express your personal thoughts on the subject matter on there. Further more, if I have any more personal comments or thoughts to write on talk pages in the future, I will put them across in a more formal manner, as I agree with Ten of all trades, that Hitler comparisons will never further the argument (although, once again, I never meant it in the way some took it). Next time I will use Stalin or Amin, (that was a joke, just to lighten up the mood a bit). I would still like to be directed to a talk forum on wikipedia where I can rant on about Helen Clark without ramifications. I hope we can all come away from all this as friends, as I usually don't like to rock the boat too much. But as you may well have noticed, I go slightly mad when it comes to Helen Clark, a state further aggravated by her practically winning the elections. Well I'll stop writing now... Spawn Man 23:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC) P.S. Tenofalltrades: How long do you think I have to live before your attack mice catch up to me? I don't want to die without going to Disney land...

Since you agree your posts "got a bit out of control", why don't you try retrieving them from history, editing out the bits which are over the top, and putting them back on the talk page? I removed your posts rather than edit them because I thought that would be less offensive to you; editing someone else's talk page comments is generally not done on Wikipedia.

There is no forum on Wikipedia where rants are welcome. This is not a forum, it's an encyclopedia, and the talk pages are places to assist its building. We are much more tolerant of rants on talk pages than in articles, but you went too far. We are more tolerent still of rants on one's own user page; I can't guarantee that anything you put on your own user page will stay there, but it would have to be pretty extreme before I removed it.

Finally, I suggest you get over any issues you have with non-New Zealanders contributing to articles on New Zealand politics. The articles are written for everyone, not just New Zealanders, and the extra perspective of editors from around the world improves them.-gadfium 00:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my point. I would love other editors from around the world to submit what ever they wish. I do not have a problem with that. My problem was the fact that he denied the fact that the new zealand parliament has parliamentary sit down meals, when however, I know for a fact, because I have visited parliament numerous times, that they do actually have meals together. That was my problem.

I find that my posts were removed completely more offensive than if you edited them somewhat. I read the rules, & it says that you are allowed to edit posts if they are too over the top.

Another point, as I have said, most people do see the talk pages as an open forum to the article's subject. I recant on all the offensive stuff I may have used, but I will not on the fact of talk pages being used as personal talk forums. I would not talk about anything other than the article's subject matter on its talk pages. But I think both personal & improving & even critisizing posts should be allowed on talk pages. For example, personal view points can lead to other areas of thought, & even enlighten other users to use their own opinions.

E.G. I hate food. Why? I don't like the taste of this food...etc. Well that could be due to the acids in that food. What acids? Check out this page...etc.

But if someone, such as you, deleted the opening sentence "I hate food" for being unfounded, vauge & useless, then this person would never know why he didn't like that type of food. Not to mention other people who saw it who had wondered the same thing & were now enlightened about the food's taste.

E.G. I don't like Helen Clark. Why not? Because she's done this & this & this. Well actually, this MP passed that bill & etc etc.... Ok, now I know a bit more. If you want any more answers, see my talk page.

Not only is more than one person more enlightened, but people who pass by the talk page may post their questions on that person's talk page. But of course, I shouldn't have used rude or attacking posts. But personal opinions could lead to a better place of thinking if left to blossom on their talk pages. Should by no means a post of food be left on Iraq's talk page, but rather should be directed to the food's talk page.

I have a few last questions. Why did you pull this disagreement onto this page, while you could have simply deleted my posts (or edited them) & left a note of warning on my talk page? Secondly, where does this go from here? Do I get banned, exiled from the wikipedia community or get a warning etc? Does this stay on here forever? Do I get a strike? Basically, what happens after we've finished discussing things on here? Spawn Man 01:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC) P.S. I have rephrased my wording, so maybe it's more to your liking. If it still isn't up to your 'standards', then I will probably throw a taz in my chair & cry like a big baby. (not actually). But I will be annoyed. But then again, it will be up to your standards because is isn't rude. So there... :)

On a side note, the party that opposes Mme. Clark has compared her to Stalin right before the election. Zach (Sound Off) 02:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I posted on this page because what I did is a little bit controversial, and I wanted my peers to see what I'd done and possibly comment on it. I also wanted you to see a wider reaction to your posts. I'm happy that two editors (User:TenOfAllTrades and User:Aecis) seem to support me on this.

This discussion will be archived in a week or so once we stop contributing to it. After that, the incident will be largely forgotten. You don't get disciplined, although it would be fair for you to consider it a warning. If you want to talk about it further, I suggest you post on my talk page (or yours), and we won't waste the time of everyone else, unless you specifically want this discussion to continue in this more public place.-gadfium 03:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Please keep me out of this, Gadfium. As I said: "I will not get involved in the discussion about what information an article about Helen Clark should or should not contain." I don't support you in this, and I don't oppose you in this. I am simply not involved in the discussion. My only response here was to a comparison Spawn Man felt he had to draw. Nothing more, nothing less. I have nothing to say about Spawn Man's behaviour on the article about Helen Clark. Aecis 16:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

So you, a retired person, wanted to publicly humiliate me, a first time rule breaker, instead of just simply deleting my posts & then telling me on my talk page? Aren't you a nice person? Have a nice day.... Spawn Man 04:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Spawn Man, I suggest you follow the advice of TenOfAllTrades and revise our policies on civility and personal attacks. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I finished reading the history of this subject, and I agree with S.M. You didn't have to, as he calls it, "publicly humiliate" him. I find that quite a few talk pages have a lot of personal opinions, whether they help towards improving the article or not. I think you should be apologising to him, because this is his first time being pulled up for rude posts. But I agree with you Gadfium, his posts were borderlining extreme rudeness. I think this thing should be all forgotten and everyone kiss and make up. Market Man 04:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I finished reading the history of this user, and I find it quite likely that User:Market Man is a sockpuppet. --Carnildo 04:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Not only that, but I think the wikiproject for decency would have something to say about kissing on WP:AN. --fvw* 05:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words Market Man. I have already apologised to anyone I may have offended, rephrased my posts & have been kind & curtious. I have read your civilty etc pages now & will follow them closely. But as both I & Market Man stated, gadfium did not have to create a huge issue about it. Now I'd like this to go away, as I didn't want it to go on this long. Spawn Man 05:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC) P.S. What's a sock puppet? I have one at home, "Bob the Sock puppet".

Read sock puppet and see if anything rings a bell.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Not really. So just because Market Man has the same opinion as myself, I'm supoosed to believe he's a sock puppet? Outrageous! Spawn Man 05:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC) Although my sock puppet at home looks awfully like the striped puppet on sock puppet.

No. It is because Market Man has made no other edit than to express the same opinion as you that we suspect you of creating a sock puppet. There are ways and means of determining if it is a sock puppet, but I think that un-necessary in this largely inconsequential issue.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay okay, so I'm a bad liar. Market Man is my friend who I signed up today. So technically, he doesn't count as a sock puppet, but he's definitly biased towards me. Muahahahahaha. Now can we all be friends & forget about this, cause I'm getting bored with all this beaurocratic chit chat. I've apologise, been publically humiliated as punishment, discussed the issues, promised to try harder (everyone makes mistakes, even me, no matter how perfectly perfect I am) & that should be that. So goodnight menosan, sayounara. Spawn Man 06:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, to answer the original comment from Spawn Man, grace was stopped when New Zealand gained its first Moslem MP (IIRC Asif Choudhry) which coincided with Helen Clark becoming PM. In other words, it was done in order not to offend an MP from a non-Christian religion - not for reasons of Helen Clark's own beliefs. As such, it is completely irrelevant to the article. Grutness...wha? 07:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Zizban

I've been putting up with crap from this user (see his countless edits to User_talk:Kiand and User:Kiand in the past six months, and note that the countless 141.154.151.* edits, User:Generallego and User:Symbols are his sockpuppets.

Now he's been placing attacks against me on his talk page, and reverting when I remove them under WP:NPA.

I reported this earlier in the week when I wasn't sure who the sockpuppets belonged to, nothing was done. Its now extremely clear who they belong to, and I'd like something done about it. --Kiand 13:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I blocked an IP and Lego that I saw on your user page history for a few weeks. --Golbez 23:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

He's still at it. Minor edits to my user page, and readding/chaning stuff which is definately covered under WP:NPA on his user page. He also edits little to nothing else at this stage, so I can't see why he can't be just blocked. --Kiand 21:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest another admin take a look at this, since it does appear you threw the first punch by editing his page, but your edits could be seen as legit, whereas his are simply harassing. I'll block him for a short while, but I'd like a second opinion on this. (PS, anyone home? Why am I the only one responding to this, several days after the first report?) --Golbez 21:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Alabambam

I would like to request that someone consider blocking User:Alabambam. (I've read mountains of legal-sounding-policy pages -- none of which seem to be current -- about how to request this and couldn't find one.) The only purpose of this log-in is to spread hate. Here's what he added to Joke:

Q: Why did the nigger cross the road?

A: Because niggers are an inferior race.

and:

Q: What's the difference between a Jew and a pizza?

A: Pizza doesn't scream in the oven.

You'll also notice in his/her user history (Special:Contributions/Alabambam) that he was fighting on the Hurricane Katrina page to talk about how black people aren't as smart as white people and this is why most of the victims were black.

I hope that someone can help keep this person from vandalizing wikipedia anymore.-Quasipalm 15:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I already did.

Last night.

--Golbez 15:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

User:24.222.79.90

User is getting quite nasty about inforcing his own revisions. He has gone edit/revert happy. Prefers to have his discussions in the revert comments instead of talk pages. Jwissick 07:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)