Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive376

help regarding User:Callmederek

I am not exactly sure how to handle this.
User:Callmederek appears to be systematically removing category:military acronyms from a lot of pages.
Can an admin view his contributions and see if any of his edits are warrented? If they are not, is there an admin tool to rollback all (or in this case, most) of a particular user's contributions with one click? If there is no tool like that, if you like, leave me a message on my talk page and I will use huggle to undo all his "renegade" contribs. Thanks. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you brought this up with him? —Random832 20:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

editor notified of thread. ThuranX (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editing while blocked [1] [2] using his username Uconnstud (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not edited while blocked. Any instance in which I have used an IP address was incidental, and corrected, but never done while my user name was blocked. This editor is continously trying to discredit me and have be blocked, and is using his more powerful knowledge of the Wiki system to do it. Please ignore his request. He is trying to vandalize the St. John's article by adding falacious and out of context material, and does not like that I have continously argued against it. See Talk:St. John's University (New York City) ---TiconderogaCCB (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Simply look at his contribution history while the IP was blocked and when he used his user page. Editing while blocked. TiconderogaCCB has also been warned for attacking others. [3] Uconnstud (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

All you need to do is look at Talk:St. John's University (New York City) "Edit warning" to see what this is really about. Further, the "attacking others" was another instance when he reported me for sarcasim that did not even rise to such a level, despite his endless contributions of the same kind. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack

called me a crazy kid [4] Uconnstud (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly a personal attack. seicer | talk | contribs 21:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

IT is uncivil though, and he has a history of uncivil behavior. 150.210.226.6 (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

See above for the root of my frustration. Anyone else would have utilized much stronger language by this point. However, I will refrain from underhanded comments, as it is my primary goal to solve the article dispute, not bicker with UConnStudd. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

IP making racial/nationalist comments on Greek/Cypriot pages

88.232.137.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making some rather pointed, and borderline racial/nationalist comments on a variety of Greek/Cypriot article and talk pages. (See history here.) I gave them a final warning for their edits, but not sure if it's going to make much of a difference. I'm also not sure if I need just to report them to AIV if they keep it up, or bring it here, as I think this might be a sock, but I can't put my finger on who it is a sock of. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This IP is probably a sockpuppet. The user has gone by multiple IP and usernames. Special:Contributions/83.66.22.10, Special:Contributions/88.252.64.238, and User:Justice_Forever to name a few. _{El Greco}^(talk) 20:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I knew my sock-puppet sense was tingling. I also note that the IP has been blocked as well, so I guess this is resolved. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Add 88.252.66.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list, starting up where the last IP left off. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My guess is it is this banned user. Antandrus (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

88.232.245.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) decided to join the fray. If I were an admin, I'd WP:RBI, but I'm not, however it's going from disruptive to downright annoying. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Aggressive cross-posting and block evasion

Guest934 has some sort of grievance that might be meritorious, but is going about it the wrong way. See this example and this history. Durova^Charge! 20:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See also http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-February/090791.html for a discussion of the issue on wikienl. —Random832 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the way this was originally dealt with was insensitive. "the troll side"? honestly... —Random832 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not all that sure that it's correct to characterize it as "aggressive cross-posting" when he is only posting it to the talk pages of the members of arbcom. though an e-mail to arbcom-l might have been better —Random832 21:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is also Visitor876 (talk · contribs) and quite possibly other accounts as well. --Yamla (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Add Guest385.[5] Durova^Charge! 23:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Transitguru

User has been permanently blocked [6] for repeatedly spamming the Transit article and a few other ones as well. Since his block, the transit article has had the same spam link inserted by IP editors five times[7][8][9][10][11] and also once[12] in the Airport article. The IPs are all in the range 207.244.xxx.xxx. WHOIS says this range belongs to Qwest Communications Corporation in Denver. The spam is near identical and clearly still Transitguru, but I don't know what to do about a range of IP addresses. SpinningSpark 21:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

File a request at Wikipedia:Request for checkuser, listing the blocked account and all the IPs. It's straightforward and usually very quick. Darkspots (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ask for the link to be listed on the spam blacklist. Corvus cornix_talk 23:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The IPs don't actually link to the site in the above diffs, however. Darkspots (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, SpinningSpark submitted an RFCU, which came back confirmed that this is indeed a case of an indef-blocked user using IPs to evade their block. Alison said one thing that could be done was a softblock of a tight IP range including most of the IPs used to spam the article. Can an administrator look at this and say whether the volume of spamming makes this kind of block appropriate? Darkspots (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

More image deletion

I am requesting semi-protection for two pages, History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union and History of antisemitism due to persistent vandalism by a range of IPs. The IPs involved so far are:

• 72.76.0.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 72.68.112.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 72.68.127.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.127.239.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 72.76.10.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 72.76.2.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

See the earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Ani#Image_deletion. The person behind these IP's began by making deceptive edit summaries (punc). The editor then began raising absurd objections to the provenance and accuracy of the image. The image was created by User:David Shankbone, a trusted contributor who has made many fine image contributions to Wikipedia. The editor has, since my original notice here, adopted the strategy of making only one edit before changing IP's. I have used up my three reverts in 24 hours on both pages. I don't know what other damage my have come from this range of IP's, and I don't know much about IP range blocking, how to avoid collateral damage, etc. But, perhaps some action of that sort is warranted, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WHOIS says that all the IPs belong to Verizon in Reston, Virginia and all but one are part of range 72.64.0.0 - 72.95.255.255 . --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:76.175.244.209

I think this IP user has recieved enough warnings to warrant a block. I just gave them the latest warning after continuing to vandalize. The user has shown a lack of respect for wikipedia's rules and has made it clear they won't abide by them. I'm asking for a block if not a permanent ban due to the high number of vandlizations done by the user. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are looking for WP:AIV. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 23:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The contribution history of this non-static IP shows it is not necessarily one editor, so an indef block or ban is out of the question. They tend to edit in small bursts, so the best thing is to just revert & warn, and if they run out of warnings in the same editing session, report to WP:AIV. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am slightly concerned about this edit summary. Blizzard Beast / Navnløs, please remember to focus on the edit and not the editor. • Anakin ^(talk) 23:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm teaching Granny to suck eggs, but you may not be aware of what a dynamic IP address is, Navnløs. Many, if not most, ISPs will give you a "temporary" IP address. You keep the IP address until you stop using it (drop the line on a dialin line, restart your wireless router, whatever). Next time you talk to your ISP you get a new IP address. Thing is, your previous IP address is eventually reallocated to someone else. This is why they're called "dynamic" IPs. So edits (vandalism or not) done from a given IP address may well not be done by the same person over a period of time.

The IP pool I'm in is from a large ISP (BT) and covers a large area (London, England), so when I drop this IP and get a new one the old IP might potentially be reallocated to anyone amongst tens of thousands of people. This is why you can't say that edits from a given IP address are by the same person, if they're a reasonable time (days, perhaps in some cases even hours) apart, and why we don't give long term blocks to IPs (generally). If I were as an anon to vandalise from my current IP then drop it, and the IP address be indef blocked, the next user of that IP (maybe hours, maybe months later) would still be blocked. Which would, of course, be unfair.

The best we can do against IP vandalism is to look at the patterns and see if they are similar - if a vandal from a dynamic IP puts "I POOP ON YOUR POOPY POOP" on an article today and again next week it's reasonable to assume it's the same person, particularly if there are no edits in between. Conversely if an IP seems sometimes to do good edits, then sometimes to put poop in articles, the chances are it's several people who are being allocated the IP address over time. You can't assume that a dynamic IP is a "known vandal". Tonywalton ^Talk 01:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Underage Pornography

Resolved

- blocked indef _→AzaToth 00:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ciompi.sellone has been constantly uploading copyrighted images to gay pornstar articles. But the real problem is the uploading of Image:Brent Corrigan in Every Poolboys Dream.jpg that is the DVD cover of a movie featuring what is now known to be someone underage during filming. The DVD is no longer in circulation and has resulted in lawsuits. I think this is a serious matter because the movie is now considered illegal and showing the picture could possibly be against the law. His additions of the picture are here & here. Note: He has blanked his talk page several times to get rid of the violation warnings. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The image has been deleted. Tiptoety ^talk 01:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

here is another one uncivil remark [13] 150.210.226.6 (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is TiconderogaCCB, this editor has continued to post against me, but as I have stated, thought anyone else would have utilized much stronger language by this point, I will refrain from underhanded comments, as it is my primary goal to solve the article dispute, not bicker with UConnStudd. This is the 8th time in 24 hours this editor has attempted to report me. To see more about the dispute go to Talk:St. John's University (New York City). I am attempting to discuss the article with him, and instead he makes one line comments and reports me to Wiki administrators for minor sarcasim. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Urgent Assistance request

Request intervention at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TomPhan and/or page semi-protection of BQ — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP if you feel it's appropriate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see it's already been protected. Nice. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet page cleaned up. Texsaxet (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea who tagged this as resolved, but it is far from resolved. Please check out Texsaxet's version of "cleaning up things" and see the problems I am dealing with. Additionally, instead of semi-protecting the page to prevent senseless vandalism by a indef blocked editor circumventing his block, an admin has protected the page. In its current state, this gives the disruptive editor exactly what he wants without a chance for correction. This action is not helpful in any way. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP

...is really backed up. Any assistance would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:JFBurton requesting unblock

• JFBurton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user is requesting an unblock. They claim that they have atoned for their sins, and are willing to contribute constructively from now on. I hold no opinion on the matter as yet, and am only posting this to bring more admins in on it to see what the prevailing opinion is on this request. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not terribly opposed, provided they're willing to accept mentorship (heck, I'll even volunteer to mentor) and to go on a "one strike and you're out" civility patrol. - Philippe | Talk 19:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Some background can be found here, where the indef-block was discussed and endorsed. I personally don't see much in the way of apology or acknowledgment of the issues that led to the block in the unblock request, which makes me naturally wary. If someone's willing to keep an eye on him (and the other eye out for sockpuppetry) and block again if there's any sign of the activities that were unpalatable last time, then perhaps an unblock would be worthwhile. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, this guy. Sure, unblock him, but keep a very close eye on him. Grandmasterka 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's been 10 months. If he wants to edit on this account, with all its history, rather than create a new one, it has some ring of sincerity. Gimmetrow 08:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• I say unblock him, with a warning that he is being watched. The fact that he's coming back and wants to use the old account is IMHO a good sign. He could have just as easily, no easier, created a new account without the baggage. By using his old account, he knows that people will be watching him---particularly if Phillipe is sincere about his offer above.Balloonman (talk) 09:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• 10 months should be enough to learn his lesson. Would it be possible for a checkuser to be run against his current IP to see if there has been any recent anon. or sockpuppet abuse that we just haven't connected to him? MBisanz ^talk 09:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've unblocked. Gimmetrow 09:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I really wish you hadn't done that until we'd decided/codified whether a mentorship agreement was the desire of ANI and whether he was willing to accept that. I've now proposed it to him, but because it wasn't made a condition of the unblock I don't feel like I have any grounds to require it... particularly since the user had not yet responded to my question about whether he would be willing to accept mentorship. I kinda feel like you shot me in the foot here. - Philippe | Talk 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure yet, but the unblock may have been premature. Most of the post-unblock edits look benign, but this seems a bit over-the-top. Removed all the references in favor of a rather dubious list of "typical" behaviors and pure WP:OR ideas about its cause. -- Kesh (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

JFBurton has accepted my offer of mentorship. His talk page has the details of the mentorship, but basically, I'm requiring him to maintain civility at all times, understand that his edits will be audited and feedback given, and to treat those giving feedback with respect. I do not require that he blindly accept the feedback - he's entitled to argue his case - but the moment it becomes heated he's expected to notify me so that I can interceded. I agree with Kesh that wiping out the refs section of an article is questionable, and will include that in my first batch of feedback to him. - Philippe | Talk 16:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Move request closing at WP:RM

I would like to raise some policy questions on how the move requests are handled over at WP:RM.

On February 24 I posted two move requests at WP:RM 'Other requests';

• RM:Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F. → Académica de Coimbra (later amended to Académica de Coimbra OAF), and
• RM:Associação Académica de Coimbra → Coimbra Academic Association

They both ended less than satisfactory for both me and my opponent (the other person in the discussion). This is maybe to some extent my fault, but the biggest reason is the intervention of the "closing admin", User:Philip Baird Shearer. After two fairly short debates between two and three people respectivly, both RMs seemed to just fizzle out. I was expecting two 'no consensus' results and were thinking of either amending the nominations or just withdraw them alltogether. In steps the "closing admin" who closes both RMs and releases two rather strange "verdicts".

RM:Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F.

In the case of the RM of this football club, it was closed as a 'no consensus', which is fine since there were no-one debating it except me (the nominator) and User:Yodaki. The problem is Shearer's addition of his personal (and clearly uninformed) view in some sort of verdict or interpretation of the RM. I approached him on this on his talkpage, and removed his views from the archived RM. I think that if you have a view on the subject you should add it to the discussion where it can be debated, and not as a "verdict" when closing the discussion.

RM:Associação Académica de Coimbra

In the case of the students' union, me and User:Yodaki were discussing different alternatives when the RM was closed. The problem, in short, is that the Associação Académica de Coimbra is both a students' union (which I think should be named Coimbra Academic Association by WP:UE) and a multi-sports club with top-flight teams in e.g. handball and volleyball, with the professional football club AAC-OAF an autonomous part of it. Not only was the RM accepted prematurely, my request was also amended without discussion by the closer (again mr Shearer), creating a possible dab-problem with Coimbra Academic Association - football and adding the move of Estádio Universitário de Coimbra → Coimbra University Stadium (contrary to WP:WPF's conventions on Stadium names), before closing the RM. The RM itself was tied 1-1 so there was clearly no consensus.

The result of the RMs was that Associação Académica de Coimbra and all it's sub-articles was moved to Coimbra Academic Association, and the football club, Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F. (which is the subject that I actually think have an English WP:common name in Académica de Coimbra) was left where it is. I don't think that this is a good outcome. I have since come up with a (in my opinion) better suggestion (posted on User talk:Yodaki) which would have been an amendment to the RM, if it wasn't closed prematurely.

Frankly I'm a bit worried about how things are run over at WP:RM. It seems that the closing admins just makes the decisions themselves, not paying attention to the discussions. I also think that the closing admins should refrain from making personal interpretations when closing the RMs, withdrawing their views from the discussio and possibly setting precedents for future RMs.

This said, I would like to make it perfectly clear that I'm certain that these closings were not made with any malign intentions from User:Philip Baird Shearer. I'm not trying to point the finger at him, but rather raise some policy questions about WP:RM, to make the proceedings over there more objective and neutral. Sebisthlm (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have given detailed reasons for the closure I made of the RM. Further I have given anyone who wants to debate the decision a chance to do so.

See Talk:Coimbra_Academic_Association#Review. If there is not a clear policy or guideline to follow (as there is in this case) I will go with the consensus see my closing of [14]. Or This one when someone complained of a decision I had made and on consideration I reversed the decision. On the 24 February 2008 I reviewed 7 requests on the 19th I reviewed 21 requests. That makes 28 requests of which the three I listed here are ones were people have questioned the decision. If there is no clear policy or guideline then I will go with the consensus, but I will not breach policy and guidelines when making a move even if there local consensus is to move an article. If Sebisthlm, you wish to discuss the specific decision in the case of the Coimbra_Academic_Association then lets do so at Talk:Coimbra_Academic_Association#Review --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I begin to understand why WP:RM suffers from chronic backlog. Relata refero (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

MisterWiki (talk · contribs) and Diegogrez (talk · contribs)

• To set the stage, back when Diego Grez was up for deletion, it was clear that it was a hoax. Diegogrez (talk · contribs) was blocked for repeated hoaxmongering, and Musicfan48 (talk · contribs) started up doing the same thing. A sockpuppet report was filed by User:Jespinos, who added MisterWiki (talk · contribs) to the list, since MisterWiki had signed his name as Diego Grez at one point on WikiMedia Commons. MisterWiki insisted he was not Diegogrez, and said Diego was indeed a vandal, and the matter was closed.

Except recently, he has started adding references to Diego Grez again, this time having the alias of "DJ Raiden", which is up for deletion too. Given his style of editing, I think it's fairly clear that they're one and the same and that a CU should be run, but complicating the matter is that up until recently MisterWiki has not been editing with hoaxmongering in mind and his history was actually good enough for him to get rollback rights. I'm still not convinced. I'm not sure what the next step is. JuJube (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont know what it is. MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 21:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Why Dj raiden would be Diego Grez, nobody knows the name of the DJ (i dont know) but always confund me with Diego Grez, im not guilty, also, in the YouTube profile, nowhere says Im Diego Grez, this cannot be a coincidence. The stupid also knows my password, How can i change that, he uploaded images like Image:Perro-cariñoso.jpg and others with copyright [15]. I dont know why everybody think what i am diego grez. Please stop. All my evidence is there. MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 21:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

DJ Raiden is not Diego Grez, you say? That's not what you said before. JuJube (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Other claims and concerns notwithstanding, I read the assertion from MisterWiki above ("[Someone else] also knows my password") as an acknowledgment that the account has been compromised? Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if you really want to block me, ok, but im not guilty of these things. --MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 22:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

More evidence, MisterWiki and Diego Grez are the only two people in the world that speak the Carmeni language [16](Another Diego Grez's hoax). Additionally, enciclopediadgcarmeni.wiki-site.com is one of the websites of Diego Grez. See also [17], enciclopediadges.a.wiki-site.com is the main personal site of Diego Grez. Jespinos (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Is only a redirection. Like others. --MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That redirection should be speedy deleted. Corvus cornix_talk 23:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is presumably another hoax. To compare the supposed album cover with Image:Bullying Irfe.jpg. Jespinos (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The song is not a hoax by Diego Grez, i made myself that image and is licensed under gfdl, i confused it with the cover of Together Forever by DJ Lhasa. Can be referenced by 4shared, the music was played in the RED TV tv program, Asi Somos video in YouTube, Wena Naty is not a hoax. MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 03:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To be sure, the supposed song is based on a video that is not a hoax, but the video is unencyclopedic and, above all, it is illegal. According to the news media, the video shows a sexual act among minors. Jespinos (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Afd top

This is the template used to close afds. I was just closing one, and thought about maybe adding '''{{{1|result}}}''' to the end, directly following "The result was". If I'm correct, this will remove the need to add the result as something like '''delete'''. Instead, we'd only have to write {{subst:at|delete}}, and it would show up the same. Thoughts? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 22:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that's been discussed before and rejected...not sure why, though... --Haemo (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been closing lots of AfDs lately. Anything simpler would be appreciated by me for one. Do you know, Haemo, where that discussion happened? Maybe I'm missing something. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

please please do it - would make things a lot quicker. Viridae^Talk 23:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure - I'm a bit hesitant though, this would change the way every admin closes these. This is a really important thread, and I'm not sure everyone's seen it. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 23:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You may want to use some of the AFD closing scripts out there, they do basically the same thing with about the same amount of effort, no template work required. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't image why something like that would be rejected; it's an optional parameter anyway. Maybe I'll just put it in, with some logic that turns "d" in "delete", etcetera... — Edokter • Talk • 01:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Work on that, it would be useful still. Maybe extra templates could be used for delete results, keep results, etc. Since it is, in fact, an optional parameter, I've added it in, along with a second one, which would appear to be for a summary. If anyone wants to use the new template method, the code is {{subst:at|result.|summary.}}. I've tested it, and it works fine, using the original form, the full form using both optional parameters, and using only one parameter. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 02:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems it was already reverted. But I became bold and implemented my version of an optional parameter. (I don't see any use in a second parameter.) See the talk page on how it works and give feedback there. There should be no reason to revert, as it is an optional parameter. But using it will save typing, which is what using templates is all about. — Edokter • Talk • 14:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, {{sfd top}} does exactly what is being suggested here for WP:SFD, and is very useful. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I routinely find myself doing this with {{at}}, and having to go back and re-do my close. I've added the instructions to the template page itself, as there was nothing there to indicate how the template was actually used in practice. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Back log

Hey guys, WP:AIV is kinda back logged with a few active vandals at the moment. Just a heads up. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You know what would be great, is if the bot at AIV posted a message here or at AN when the backlog reached, oh, more than 10. Tiptoety ^talk 05:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, yeah that would be a great and nifty feature - where could we find out? Contact the creator of the bot, the village pump? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to contact the bot operator before taking it to a community discussion to at least see if he would be interested, or even able to have the bot do that. Tiptoety ^talk 14:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Dorftrottel

Resolved

Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This user is constantly leaving me messages on my talk page. I left just one on his that said "do not message me unless you have something constructive to say." Despite this, he has left me two more messages, and one was (ha!) to warn ME about being uncivil. This is uncalled for (and quite ridiculous) — I can't see how I'm being rude by not replying to him.

He needs to be warned. I'm tired of these pointless messages. Timneu22 (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, you did accuse him of having a learning disability... o_O JuJube (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  Which can definitely be construed as a personal attack. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  A quick look through the history of Timneu22's talk page calls to mind the saying in Matthew 7:3 about the mote and the beam. andy (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  I have not been a disruptive wikipedian. If anything, it is the opposite. All I've done is wipe out his comments on my talk page. My edit summary is not a personal attack, as I'm not attacking HIM. Timneu22 (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  Further, it is Anydjsmith who leaves me messages calling me an ass. I'm not the disruptive one here. Again, your accusations are absurd. Timneu22 (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  Actually, not. I'd like to see the edit where I said this. Anyway this is a silly way to carry on - there was no "incident" that needed report on AN/I, but there probably is now! andy (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you Timneu22, for not notifying me about this thread. For everyone else, kindly consider this thread and the diffs highlighted therein. Of particular interest besides Timneu22's general incivility is the way he automatically assumes bad faith and sockpuppets at every turn. Dorftrottel (ask) 14:06, February 27, 2008

• Moreover, consider Timneu22's disruptive recent mass conversion of archive box transclusions to his own {{Archive banner}} which was thoroughly overturned. Also, here are some diffs that highlight this user's frequent failure to abide by AGF, CIV, and even NPA: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Dorftrottel (canvass) 14:17, February 27, 2008
• In light of Timneu22's general behaviour it's a mere footnote that he opened a thread at WP:WQA and this one here at ANI within 4 minutes of each other. Dorftrottel (troll) 14:35, February 27, 2008

• Further evidence of incivility and bad faith assumptions: [23] [24] [25] [26] seicer | talk | contribs 15:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop redirecting the issue. There is only one issue. I just want you to stop leaving me disruptive messages on my talk page. I have not left any on yours; I simply delete the messages you leave me. I am tired of you accusing me of ANYTHING. You are leaving me messages and then calling me disruptive when I clean up my talk page. This is not disruptive. Just leave me alone, this is all I'm asking. Stop redirecting the issue at hand. Timneu22 (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Timneu22, if you are simply wanting Dorftrottel to leave you alone, then why pray tell, are you opening an ANI report? I'm at a loss as to how this will draw less attention to the matter. Enlighten me? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's why, Keeper76... I get an awful message from the user, and I delete it. I do nothing else. Later, I get another disruptive message from the user. This is unwarranted, and I want it to stop. I have repeatedly told the user to stop leaving messages, to no avail. I had to take action. Timneu22 (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Has he posted any message since you opened this report? If not, I would say it has stopped. What other action are you hoping for? And what response do you have to the links provided by other editors here regarding your own actions and contentious editing? Again, if you don't want to get burnt, stay out of the sun...coming here with an accusation, regardless of the merits, almost always brings your own actions under scrutiny, under the Two to Tango Clause of course. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

He posted another message yesterday, and I started this thread shortly thereafter. I don't know that it has stopped. This is the only action I'm hoping for. Timneu22 (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the other editors' accusations, I fail to see how edits I made three weeks ago are relevant to this discussion. Obviously, things have cooled since then. Timneu22 (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• So much so that you started posting unpleasant remarks on my Talk page again, accused me of incivility and then said on Wikiquette that I was a sockpuppet. Then deleted the entire Wikiquette section. Sorry, I wasn't going to mention any of this but actually you have made sure that things have not cooled by launching a public attack on this editor and then doing the same to me. andy (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Well, Timneu22 called me a moron and said I have a learning problem, both of which is of course spot-on. Also: I posted the uw-npa2 message at 05:25, 26 February 2008 (not the first he received, I might add), and he opened this thread almost 24 hours later. As far as I'm concerned, I think the thread has fulfilled its non-function and I think it can be closed. If someone feels like occasionally monitoring Timneu22 for further disruptive and/or uncivil behaviour, that would be appreciated. Dorftrottel (talk) 15:38, February 27, 2008

Closing. Backing away slowly, everyone....

Rangeblock?

205.189.25.71 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

205.189.25.216 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

205.189.25.228 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

I have no clue about rangeblocks, but I was wondering if one would be in order here? There is persistent trolling and vandalism, and it seems that whenever an IP is blocked, a new one appears. I believe the range would be 205.189.16.0/20, although I may be mistaken. I dont know if one would be in order here, any comments from admins with more experience in this field? « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Range blocks can have serious implications on innocent users - if those are the only IPs that have sprung up, I would deal with them one by one normally, warning and report to WP:AIV. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha I actually blocked one of them, I just wanted clarification if more of these start popping up on whether a range block would be warranted. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If you ultimately end up doing the rangeblock thing, just remember to keep the duration short and softblock only!! - Alison ^❤ 06:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have died down, and I think I would find someone more experienced to do the rangeblock... *peers over toward Alison* ...haha jk, I was just wondering for future reference, if this troll really feels like trolling. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Content issue

(copy from AIV to here) Barkonst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - On Lonnie Frisbee; vandalism after final warning. This person is removing sourced content after having been asked not to in edit summaries and on the article's talk page by several other users and administrators. Discussion with this user has also taken place on various other user talk pages as well. User refuses to heed these discussion or even give sources for his removal of this valid sourced content. Quite belligerent on the whole matter. Not to mention he claims to be a documentary film maker on the subject of the article which would seem a WP:COI issue as well. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 09:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

American Patriot Party - Deletion by Administrators

Resolved

WP:DRV recommended to author. No admin action required. Pedro :  Chat  10:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a deletion of the article "American Patriot Party" that was being debated. It was deleated by apparently administrators before much discusion was had. And with no real reason to delete as edits were being made to improve the article. When trying to reestablish this article I was blocked by an administrator. I would like to have the article reopened and need neutral a third party to aid in discussing and improving the article on the Talk Page retaining the previous discussions. User Richard Taylor APP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Taylor APP (talk • contribs) 09:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to have been support for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Patriot Party (2nd nomination) which ran for the normal time. After the article was deleted following the AfD debate you then re-created the article, and it was speedy deleted, which is in line with our policies. From my reading, your argument in support of the article was that the party may become prominent in the future. However, Wikipedia's notability policy limits us to things which are notable at present. If you're not happy with the process used in closing the deletion debate Wikipedia:Deletion review is the best place to raise your concerns. If you recreate the article again without doing this you should expect it to be quickly deleted. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The article was deleted through Afd. The discussion lasted 8 days, which is well beyond the required 5 days an Afd discussion should run. Also, you are not blocked and never have been. I don't see anything here that requires admin attention.--Atlan (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good delete in keeping with standard operating procedure and our processes - I also see nothing requiring administrator intervention. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jon Hobynx likely reincarnation of R:128.40.76.3 et al

Resolved

 – sock blocked

Jon Hobynx (talk · contribs) is a likely reincarnation of the string of blocked socks of R:128.40.76.3 (talk · contribs). He undid a bunch of the user page tags on the sock accounts and doth protest too much about my having sought the blocks that are in place on them. User:Pete.Hurd has commented previously that he believed Jon Hobynx to be another sock and I have left a note on his talk page and expect he'll comment here. I'd like folks to review the whole issue. You might start here: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of R:128.40.76.3. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I am not associated with R:128.40.76.3 et al, merely interested as they have previously shown an interest in Kiwi scientists. Jack Merridew seems to have gone on a bit of a tagging spree and accused a bunch of unassociated accounts and IP's of being socks. The only accounts where there is evidence to suggest a sock is Iconoclast4ever (by admission). As for the above allegation, a checkuser would conform that beyond a doubt and show that I am clearly not related nor a sock puppet. It seems that this is not the only case where Jack Merridew has abused sock puppet tagging policy, and a quick look through his history sees that any account or IP which disagrees with him in regards to D&D and role playing articles has been labeled a sock of User:Grawp. While in this case I agree some of the accounts may well be socks, I find some of Jack's allegation absurd. For example: claiming that Grawp is a master hacker using a sophisticated network of trojan viruses using anon IP's to revert his edits is absurd. Surely a more reasonable explaination is that more than one user (registered or not) disagrees with his edits. For what its worth, User:Jack Merridew is most likely an account created to avoid an indef block on User:Moby Dick and User:Davenbelle, see [27] for evidence. Their editing styles are the same, their manner of finding conflict are the same, following and harassment of user:White Cat is the same. A good example of WP:DUCK. Jack Merridew definetly needs his wings clipped. Jon Hobynx (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The only example of WP:DUCK I can see here is an editor that edits in small spurts, then disappears regularly, the last being disappearing completely for four months, only to suddenly re-appear and start removing sockpuppet tags from a particular sockfarm. Quack quack indeed. Black Kite 10:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

After closer examination, blocked as an obvious sock. Account was created 3 minutes after the admin that blocked the above accounts announced her intent to do so. Quack! Black Kite 13:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I do wish she would return… Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It gets more interesting; see [28] where he references a sock allegation made against me at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop#Indefinite block of Jack Merridew by User:White Cat. Note also that the WP:DUCK link he gives redirects to Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade which I linked to on the workshop page a few weeks ago; here. I have suspected the White Cat's allegation was somehow intended to reveal where I am to the many harassers who have dogged my edits and made numerous threats; [29]. I am concerned about the connection between these incidents. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Peat.Turd (talk · contribs) - another likely sock and an obvious attack on Pete Hurd. Already username blocked. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Massive spam sock/meat farm

• quasimodobell.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Yes, that list at WT:WPSPAM#Long term quasimodobell.com spam contains no less than 200 spam only accounts, with edits spanning more than two years. I posted a checkuser-friendly list of the accounts in my sandbox, if anyone can be bothered weeding out the stale ones and running checks.

The site, of course, has already been blacklisted but there's a removal request by one of the over two hundred accounts. Supposedly "we understand that we may added too many links too soon", which suggests that they are coordinated. Can we have a few admins to bag and tag over there please? MER-C 12:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Advali

Can I please have an administrator help me with this user? Advali has re-created an article (presumably about a friend of his/hers) Rachelle Dimapilis as well as re-uploaded an image (poorly photoshopped and probably a part-copyvio) File:Zaqxsw.jpg. If you look at the Advali's talk page you will see what I'm talking about. In all honesty, I wish there was a staged recreation warning (like uw-vandalism), so that you can tell the user to "give it a rest, seriously". Anyway, what's the policy regarding the repeated recreation of deleted articles and images if the user re-creates again? SMC (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, nevermind. The user appears to have vanished into thin air (or at least their user/user talk pages have) and I have no idea what happened.. SMC (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:John Reaves deleted all involved pages and blocked him. I don't really follow what happened either. • Anakin ^(talk) 14:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppet User:Runreston still active

An earlier checkuser (see here) definitively confirmed that User:Xcstar and User:207.91.86.2 were sockpuppets of User:Racepacket, resulting in a permanent block of Xcstar. Xcstar had been used primarily to make false and defamatory edits to the Dane Rauschenberg article and other related articles. Shortly after the ban, User:Runreston was created, following the same path as Xcstar and the most recent sockpuppet check confirmed that Runreston was a likely sockpuppet of Racepacket. Runreston, in exactly the same disturbing obsession as Xcstar, has devoted nearly 90% of his edits to Dane Rauschenberg, following the same pattern of abusive edits and refusal to respect consensus. Given that Runreston is a confirmed sockpuppet, what is required to implement appropriate long-term blocks on both the sockpuppet and the puppetmaster User:Racepacket who created his newest sockpuppet almost immediately after the previous block. Alansohn (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Checkuser says likely. Runreston blocked. I suggest a final warning to Racepacket that any further such crap will likely result in a ban, not sure what others would think here. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Dr Boubouleix

I blocked this user for making a legal threat. Ironically, it seems he's now making legal threats at the French Wikipedia because of my actions at the English Wikipedia.

I'd welcome input from some French-speaking admins, to overview my actions. Happy (as ever) to apologise if I've got something wrong. More information and links to relevant pages at the French Wikipedia can be found in this thread at my user talk: User_talk:Dweller#fr:Discuter:Dominique_Boubouleix --Dweller (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and here ([30]) is the diff that I responded to with a block. --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is, indeed, a legal threat. Indeed, it's a rather vile attack as well (albeit not directed, out of context, at anyone specific). — Coren ^(talk) 15:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ostkreuz

Resolved

There's something strange going on with the templates on this page. It's showing up in CAT:CSD, but there's no CSD template on the page. I had a quick look at the templates used on it to see whether there's a tag on one of them (Template:Hidden-delete-reason is showing up on the "Edit" page), but if there is, I can't find it. Could someone who's better with templates than I am please take a look? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:S-line/SBB right/S3 was nominated for CSD under G2, as a test page. That would add articles using that template to the CSD list... but why it has not cleared, I'm not sure. I'm working on it. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the templates on that page (and there are lots!) are protected... but, of the S-line templates included, the one noted above (S3) is the only one nominated for CSD. The tag was removed, and has not been re-added, so this is probably just an issue of letting the change pass through the cache. Does not appear to be malicious, either. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Any idea how long that usually takes? It's still showing up in the log. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's gone from C:CSD now. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by Steven407653 (talk · contribs)

Please block Steven407653 (talk · contribs), as he is trying to vandalize pages of India and Pakistan

Examples http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=prev&oldid=194421441
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=next&oldid=194421655
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan&diff=prev&oldid=194423098 - Tinucherian (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the editor has made any edits since 2 hours ago. If he does this again, report him to WP:AIV as he has already received a final warning. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Languishing thread

At the risk of annoying everyone by spamming, could I ask for some outside eyes on this thread, which is languishing at the top of the page? I'd really appreciate some outside assistance in resolving this issue. Thanks - MastCell ^Talk 17:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Outside admin assistance requested: NCdave (talk · contribs)

Hi - I'd like to request some outside eyes. NCdave (talk · contribs) posted a lengthy, largely off-topic thread at Talk:David Reardon describing his personal views on abortion and including a few external links to "crisis pregnancy centers" ([31]). I indicated that this was a misuse of the article talk page as a soapbox, and removed the external links as promotional and unecessary ([32]). NCdave responded by restoring the links, saying "Please do not censor what I say, and I won't censor what you say. OK?" and noting, inter alia, that "... a mom 'wants' an abortion like a wild animal, with its leg caught in a steel trap, 'wants' to gnaw its leg off." ([33]). I don't see this as productive or appropriate discussion in the forum of Talk:David Reardon.

Context: I've had run-ins with NCdave before. Based on his tendentious editing at Steven Milloy, I sought a topic ban and NCdave was banned by the community from that page for 6 months. I don't think there's any response I can take at the talk page that will be viewed constructively, given our history. Therefore, I'm asking for outside input regarding whether these discussions are appropriate under the talk page guidelines, whether it is appropriate to add (and re-add) these external links to the talk page, and so forth.

Possibly relevant links:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NCdave (pretty old)
• Block log
• Community sanction noticeboard thread
• Current talk-page thread in question

Any input or feedback is appreciated. Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

His post does not look appropriate, or at least the second half of it is not appropriate, and I've removed the external links again. Is there a particular reason you haven't brought this up with him on his talk page? Natalie (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Given our disputatious history, I doubt that anything I have to say will be received constructively (as with the article talk page). I thought it would be more useful to have uninvolved eyes look at it, though I did notify him of this thread. MastCell ^Talk 23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, and your reason for wanting outside help makes sense. I note that he had a mentor, and possibly still has. Perhaps this person could talk to him about the inappropriate talk page comments? They may have a better idea of how to approach him effectively. Natalie (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll just chime in here quickly. When Mastcell brought NCdave to WP:CSN I suggested we give NCdave a second chance and instead of community banning try topic banning, if NCdave entered WP:ADOPT. He did and he got topic banned. When he asked what behaviour people found inappropriate I went to some length to it all explain him (see his talk page) as did his mentor. However NCdave has decided to argue with issues in my posting (I'm not saying my advice was perfect but in all fairness it's a pretty good explanation of his previous problems and why they are problematic) which wasn't a very encouraging sign. But if this post is anything to go by NCdave hasn't learned from his past mistakes. Mastcell is right to bring this here - NCdave's post is utterly inappropriate - NCdave is using WP as a forum, again. That said, I thought he was doing okay in his editing at Jesse Helms--Cailil ^talk 00:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Natalie.

I disagree with MastCell's characterization of my Talk page comments, here. (I also strenuously object to MastCell's characterization of my contributions to Steven Milloy, which were over six months ago, anyhow; for the record, my edits to the Steven Milloy article were not tendentious, they were attempts to bring the article into conformance with WP:BLP.)

Background: the article in question is a biography of Dr. David Reardon, a pro-life activist whose specialty is post-abortion trauma and counseling. The broad argument here is over whether there is such a thing as post-abortion trauma (also sometimes called post-abortion syndrome, or PAS).

The specific discussion in question was about an edit to the article by a IronAngelAlice which introduced an inaccuracy into the article. In 1988 Koop wrote to President Reagan, and in his letter he said that "scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." However, IronAngelAlice's edit replaced that quote with a transplanted fragment of a statement that Koop had made elsewhere, and reported it as being in the letter to Reagan. She also made her edit with no Talk page discussion.

Rather than just fix it in the article, I sought consensus by discussing the problem on the Talk page; I then edited the article with what I hoped would be wording that would be acceptable to all: I included both the accurate quote from Koop's letter to Reagan, and also the quote which Alice had inserted, but with a correct attribution to where Koop had said it.

It is my opinion that the way to build consensus is to have frank, open discussion about points of contention, on the Talk page. Alice contends that PAS (Dr. Reardon's specialty!) does not exist. So I explained how it is that I know, from personal experience, that it does exist. The personal story I told linked to the web site of the local Crisis Pregnancy Center to which I had directed a woman suffering from PAS. I included that link so that someone who reads what I wrote can see why I gave that woman their phone number. If MastCell doesn't want to see that, he doesn't need to click on the link. Some people might not know that post-abortion counseling is a big part of the ministries at most CPCs, or might not know what that counseling really is. It seemed better to include a link rather than a big quote from their web site.

MastCell then joined the conversation, not to help find consensus on the contested sentence about Dr. Koop, but to accuse me of misusing the talk page and "spamming," and he deleted the links to the local CPC from my comments.

MastCell also didn't like the "wild animal" anecdote. But (as I noted in my comment) the wild animal anecdote was a close paraphrase (from memory) of Dr. David Reardon -- the subject of this biography! (It was one of the two most memorable things he said in the speech that I heard.) How can a close paraphrase from the subject of a biography be inappropriate to the Talk page discussion about that biography??

Cailil, hello. I respect your opinion. Please read my comments to Natalie, and review my attempt to find a consensus wording for the disputed sentence about Koop, and tell me what you think was inappropriate about my change and my explanation of it (other than wordiness, a sin of which I am frequently guilty).

Also, I am anxious to hear what bothered you about my contributions to the Jesse Helms article, but please put it on my Talk page or in private email. NCdave (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

NcDave, there is no complaint about your first comment to the talk page (this one) - I don't see MastCell complaining about it and I'm certainly not complaining about it. You were using the talk page to discuss a change to the article, which is its exact purpose. The problematic post is the second post, which is several paragraphs of your personal opinion about a controversial medical diagnosis. Your personal experience is not an admissible source for a Wikipedia article (or for scientific research - as the old saying goes "the plural of anecdote is not data") so you are hopefully not suggesting that this information be in the article. I also think the links are inappropriate - Wikipedia is not the right place to be advertising for crisis pregnancy centers. I would suggest that information about counseling from CPCs is maybe not the best unbiased information, considering their quite upfront bias about abortion and various related issues. So, in my view at least, the second post wasn't really about improving the article in any way. It sounds a lot more like soapboxing, which is an inappropriate use of a talk page.

Small point of fact, as well: Cailil doesn't criticize your contributions to Jesse Helms, he says quite the opposite. Natalie (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

@Natalie: You're absolutely right, User:JodyB was previously working with NCdave. I probably should have gone that route first before coming here, but I had forgotten about the mentoring agreement. I will touch base with JodyB. MastCell ^Talk 00:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

First: I'm sorry, Cailil, for misreading what you wrote! To take a liberty with a quote from a famous President, "there I go again." If I had a nickel for all the times my sloppiness has gotten me in trouble or caused me embarrassment... <sigh>

Also, I'm sorry if it seemed like I was advertising a local CPC, I assure you that wasn't my purpose. You are right, Natalie, that I was not suggesting that my personal explanation of why I am certain that PAS is real belongs in the article. (I can't prove that it ever even happened... trust me, I do not lie, but that assurance is not WikiProof.) In fact, I said as much when I wrote it: "The following is a personal anecdote, so it obviously doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article." But I believe in openness, I think it is helpful to know where editors are coming from. Considering that there was an argument underway about whether PAS is real I thought it pertinent to tell why I'm sure that it is. I'm sorry if it came across as soapboxie (is that a word?). I think it would be helpful to know where the other editors are coming from, too. But, of course, that is up to them.

However, I do think that CPCs' web sites are reasonable sources for information about the services that CPCs, themselves, provide, and I note that WP:V permits such sourcing. By way of symmetry, I noticed that 5 of the 15 references in the Planned Parenthood article are references to PP's own web site. NCdave (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is starting to move into the realm of a content discussion, so I think we're mostly done here. You're right, NCdave, that an organization can be a source for its own services. The issue here, I think, is that the debate is over whether or not this phenomenon exists (if I'm misreading this, then disregard the following). If I'm trying to prove that something exists, its probably best to avoid sources that have a vested interest in proving that the phenomenon exists, since their bias is quite obvious. And the anecdote seemed soapbox-y to me because it was long, detailed, written in expressive language, and seemed designed to cause an emotional reaction. If your anecdote had been more along the lines of "I've had some experience with this," and then you outlined your experience in a few sentences, that would feel less soapbox-y to me. Natalie (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Natalie. NCdave (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

More help

OK, I really need help here. I think it's clear that NCdave and I don't get along particularly well, going back at least to his topic ban which I requested for tendentious editing. I do my best to avoid him at this point - for example, he appeared at emergency contraception earlier this month, where I've been a heavy contributor, and I decided not to get involved and to let other editors with less baggage handle it.

However, in the past few days NCdave has systematically injected himself into several disputes in which I'm involved on abortion and mental health and David Reardon. He's also gone to an ArbCom thread where I've requested narrow clarification of a prior ruling, and inserted a series of personal attacks and criticism of me which are completely unrelated to the narrow technical issue under discussion ([34]). Just to make sure the point wasn't lost, he also went to the editor in question's talk page ([35]) and the relevant WP:AE thread ([36]), again mostly to criticize me. For good measure, he also went to an conduct RfC on another user which I'd opened a week or so ago and added some fairly inflammatory rhetoric ([37], [38], [39]) again focused on my many misdeeds, canvassed this editor with whom I'm in a dispute to go to the unrelated WP:AE thread and chime in ([40]), provided advice on how to wikilawyer a 3RR violation ([41]), etc. This is all in the past 24 hours or so.

NCdave is following me, injecting himself into disputes I'm engaged in, canvassing others whom I've "wronged", trying to push my buttons with inflammatory and baiting language, and so forth. This is not an editor with a clean slate, as I've detailed above (prior blocks, RfC's, topic bans, etc). I'm asking for uninvolved admins or the community to nip this in the bud, before I say something I'm going to regret. MastCell ^Talk 19:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

From what Mastcell is showing here it looks like a case of harassment. I don't understand what NCdave is doing this for, this is simply re-newed tendentious behaviour. The wiki-lawyering really annoys me - this is just is not on. What's worse is that NCdave must know what he's doing. He's been through WP:CSN, he's been here before, he's had multiple blocks for this same behaviour. He also had it all explained to him. And now he's disrupting WP to make a point again. Enough is enough--Cailil ^talk 20:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

NCdave also seems to be using administration boards as a way to stop my participation on certain pages such as Crisis Pregnancy Center. [42] --IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Alice, you did three full reverts on the same article in under five hours. All three were done with the "undo" button. In case you had lost count, I warned you on your Talk page that you had reverted three times, to help you, by keeping you out of inadvertent 3RR trouble. At the same time I pleaded with you to "Let's work together to make this a better article. Please?"

My plea fell on deaf ears. Your reply (five minutes later) was "...Please stop spamming my talk page." One minute later you reverted again -- a defiant, deliberate, 3RR violation, followed quickly by many consecutive additional reverts. So I reported it. What else was I supposed to do? NCdave (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What seems to be related to this activity is NCdave's support for User:Strider12. As Mastcell has said some outside sysop attention is needed here. I'm bewildered at what's happened to NCdave, a few weeks ago I would have said he was making good progress but this is a complete U turn--Cailil ^talk 23:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

NCdave no longer has a coach: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Status --IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Calil, contrary to MastCell's accusation, I am certainly not following him around. Rather, I avoid him whenever I can. But it isn't easy: he is a prolific editor (which is not a bad thing).

MastCell is seeking to ban User:Strider12 and User:Ferrylodge, who appear to me to be two of the most careful, conscientious editors I've seen on Wikipedia in a while, for supposed tendentiousness and disruptiveness, accusations which I believe to be unfounded. I thought the purpose of a request for comment was to elicit comments, and so I added my comments to the noticeboard cases that he had opened against them. Is that a problem?

Believe me, I did not find those cases because MastCell filed them, rather I found them because I was reading Strider12's and Ferrylodge's comments. In both cases I was sufficiently impressed by their excellent scholarship that I visited their talk pages, and discovered that someone was trying to ban them! In both cases, that "someone" was MastCell.

MastCell accused Strider12 of "long-term tendentious editing," POV-pushing ("her edits uniformly serve to advocate a single, particular agenda"), abrasiveness, disruptiveness, "constant assumptions of bad faith," "personal attacks," being "uncollaborative," and more. Those accusations against her are untrue, and I've been told that such accusations constitute WP:personal attacks.

Likewise, MastCell accused Ferrylodge of "disruptive editing," being "confrontational rather than collaborative," producing "tons of heat and zero light," and asked that he be banned. Those accusations, too, were untrue.

My comments were not for the purpose of criticizing MastCell, but to defend the people that he had wrongly accused of misbehavior. Unfortunately, it is hard to say "xxx's accusation against yyy is completely untrue" without being critical of xxx. Reading the diffs, I can see that I should have tried harder. I will endeavor to do so.

I also put a friendly note of encouragement and thanks on Strider12's Talk page, and I asked another editor (MastCell) to be gentle to a her, as a relative newcomer. How is that a problem? MastCell called that "provideding advice on how to wikilawyer a 3RR violation." That's nonsense. For one thing, there was nothing to wikilawyer, because the incident was long over with. For another, MastCell had accused her of a 3RR violation for "removing tags." In fact, she did not remove tags, she inserted them. I pointed that out, and pointed out the likely source of her confusion. I don't think I was rude about it, but I guess MastCell did not like his mistake being pointed out. NCdave (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, my take differs substantially. I'm not "seeking to ban" anyone. I opened a user-conduct RfC on Strider12 after 4 months of what I consider tendentious editing - this is a recommended part of dispute resolution. Similarly, I requested that some of the terms of the ArbCom sanctions against Ferrylodge be applied. In the last 48 hours or so, I've run into your accusations and lengthy abuse at every turn, in areas where you previously had no footprint. Would it be possible to get some outside input here? MastCell ^Talk 23:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am very glad to hear that you do not wish to ban anyone, MastCell. Will you then please revise your "request for arbitration enforcement" against Ferrylodge, in which you wrote:

"I'm asking that the ArbCom remedy be enforced and that he be banned from abortion and its associated talk page"

Thank you in advance. NCdave (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Please cease following me around Wikipedia, inserting yourself into every dispute I'm involved in, and trying to bait me. Would any outside admins be willing to comment on the issues I've raised above? MastCell ^Talk 00:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, you'd been doing rather well up until a few days ago. Its pretty clear that you have a grudge against MastCell and your behavior and comments are incredibly unproductive. This is a very large wiki, so pretending that you're trying to avoid MastCell while accidentally managing to get involved (for the first time, I might add) in two disputes in under 24 hours isn't going to wash. I suggest you disengage or take a break from the wiki if you don't think you can leave MastCell be. Shell ^babelfish 00:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sumerophile repeatedly removing citation requests, etc.

This has moved way beyond a content dispute now. User:Sumerophile has been adding dubious statements to History of Sumer and removing references that conflict with his personal assessment; I tagged his statements with a request for citation but he is repeatedly removing the "citation needed" requests, holding his own private authority and supposed expertise to trump whatever any published scholars (including even renowned Sumerologist Professor Samuel Noah Kramer) have had to say. I warned him that removing citation requests (without citing them) is considered vandalism, and he removed them again, accusing -me- of vandalism for requesting the citations. Also, if I try to remove the unsourced statements as OR, he simply returns them. He usually does not even attempt to collaborate with other editors on the talkpage. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Classic text book edit warring and vandalism. A pity that the user has to be so difficult - I would attempt a WP:RFC first on the article talk page to try and gather more users into the picture neutrally. Warn the user about WP:3RR, and give him/her a final warning about removing cited material. If it goes unabated. I would try WP:AIV for disruption. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I warned the user about WP:3RR - However it is their choice to remove this warning if they choose. I'll keep an eye on this myself. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not know there was a noticeboard that could be used like this.

User:Til Eulenspiegel is trying to promulgate a POV that an as-yet unattested country Aratta a) existed and b) is located on modern Ararat, and has been doing so very aggressively.[43] This user has also been involved in the Aratta article [44], citing obscure or off-topic sources to "verify" a location that is at this point unverifyable. WP:V WP:RS.

"Aratta" is known to us from the myth "Lugalbanda and the Lord of Aratta", but there is no archaeological evidence for its actual existance. His use of Kramer [45] was not a citation from him, rather it stated that the Sumerologist Samuel Kramer believed[46] it to refer to Northwestern Iran. A number of Assyriologists - which is the correct term for Kramer[47] - have made offhand conjectures about what might be meant by Aratta, but none have ever stated any beliefs in the matter, because there is as yet no archaeological evidence for its existance.

The edit that introduced Kramer also replaced the phrase "some Armenian archaeologists" with "while other authors", which is more general, and puts these "other authors" on Kramer's footing. Changing these words changes the meaning and implication of this sentance considerably. It can also be noted that this user placed a citation tag on the statement disclaiming the Ararat location, but not on the disclaimer for the other (South-East Iranian) location.

Sumerophile (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel has now changed the sentence considerably, removing all disclaimers. He has also cited an early work by Kramer, in which he speculated Aratta might be Urartu (in Anatolia), but quoted him as believing Aratta to refer to a location in Iran.[48] I would like to undo what Til Eulenspiegel has done, if that is all right with you, Wisdom86. Sumerophile (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And now Til Eulenspiegel has removed the disclaimer for Ararat[49]. Sumerophile (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Now Til Eulenspiegel used his spuriously placed citation tags to remove 1) the disclaimer for Ararat (but not the disclamer for SW Iran), and the statement that Aratta is unattested, without needing to provide the missing evidence for its existance. What do we do, Wisdom86? Sumerophile (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As I see has been pointed out to you on your talk page, what you need to do is cite the sources for your information. If you can't prove that your additions represent scholarly opinion, then we simply have no reason to believe you. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem category

Resolved

 – template fixed

For some reason this category won't arrange alphabetically. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Toronto-geo-stub says [[Category:Toronto geography stubs|*]] which is causing all members to be sorted as if named "*". Apparently fixed by Gonzo fan2007 as I typed this. Bovlb (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes I fixed it. It will take a little bit to repopulate the category, but that should do it. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for that. I did not intend for that to occur. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 19:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Repeated hateful and homophobic remarks

My patience is diminshing with this user. He/She was once again blocked, this time for one month, for repeated hateful remarks including: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (I was told to kill myself). Now, the person has left this lovely message (note the edit summary) on their talk page in regards to admin John Reaves after the last block. I'm asking that their talk page be protected and the block extended because it's obvious this type of language is going to continue once the current block expires. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree, there is no call for that sort of personal attack at all. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Heck, I'd have been using the buttons waaaay earlier in that masterpiece of sub-bridge-dwelling. --Dweller (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page tidied (per RBI) and protected for the duration of the block. --Dweller (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So this it what hate preachers do when Mardi Gras isn't happening... John Reaves 16:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rotating IP address notice? seicer | talk | contribs 16:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if he has a spherical floating helicopter IP address... if he behaves sufficiently badly using it to come to our attention, it'll be blocked. --Dweller (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I know it doesn't matter now since the issue has been resolved, but I just wanted to let you guys/gals know that it wasn't the name-calling that bugged me. It was the trolling and wishing me dead that really bugged me. I've been called worse names by relatives and people from my old church, so I'm numb to those kind of attacks. Thanks for the help. G'day. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:TheUmbrellaAcademyGirl

The above editor made the following edit which remains on the Wikipedia:

As of December 2007 !!!!you guys are cock sucking douche bags.,, but Admin User:John Reaves claims it is no longer there, but I suspect that the Userbot fix was cancelled out becuase it occurred the same second as the edit in question. I keep checking the article and see the above - maybe I am seeing something no one else can.

BTW: User:TheUmbrellaAcademyGirl's home page should be looked at - it contains references and obscenities which merit a permanent ban. 216.194.0.237 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Note - The userpage has been deleted per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. Tiptoety ^talk 19:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring by Allstarecho (talk · contribs) on Lonnie Frisbee

Resolved

Nothing to see here. Move along. - Philippe | Talk 20:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Will somoene please address the ongoing edit warring on Lonnie Frisbee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with Allstarecho (talk · contribs · logs · block log). He and I are not exactly the best of friends right now, but the POV editing and newbie-biting on that article should be curbed. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If you weren't so busy stalking my every move on here, you'd see I already posted about this issue above at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Content issue. The fact is, the user removed sourced content that was already in the article and has failed to discuss it on the talk page. I am not the only one that has reverted his removal of the content. Several others have as well as an admin. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 19:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the giant bold letters at the top that says, and I quote, "This page is not part of our dispute resolution process. " needs to be bigger and bolder. I see no evidence of anything here beyond the need to start the dispute resolution process, such as WP:DR describes. May i suggest starting a WP:RFC or WP:3O discussion, or, and I am going out on a limb here, HiDrNick could simply engage in a talk page discussion as Allstarecho is begging him to do. Seriously, there is no adminstrator action to take here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved

Resolved

No one here is asking an administrator to decide the dispute, and there is talk on the talk page about the content issue. I had hoped for an uninvolved editor to admonish the edit warriors here against edit warring. Instead an obviously involved administrator has protected the page in the same state that he himself edited it to just a day ago, which, coincidentally, I’m sure, is the version preferred by the user with the most reverts on the page. I was not aware that three reverts to a page in a day was behavior that was now acceptable behavior around here; if reverting and asking a friendly administrator to protect the page is the best way to win your content disputes around here, then so be it. ➪HiDrNick! 22:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, if you weren't so busy stalking me, you'd see that SatyrTN protected the page before I brought the issue to him on his talk page. He blocked at 14:54 and I brought the issue to his talk page at 15:04, a 10 minute difference. What else you got? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 02:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And just to point out, 3 reverts in one day on a page isnt against policy HiDrNick. 4 reverts would be against policy, see WP:3RR. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And further to point out that I didn't protect the page because of anyone "breaking the rules", but rather because this same behavior has been going on for days now, with several editors reverting each other without discussing the issue on the talk page. So go - discuss! :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Eyes on Selmedica

I and another editor before me have reverted edits by Markswikinto (talk · contribs) to Selmedica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I want someone to "sanity check" this revert because the question of the company's ethics may be controversial. Also, it would be nice if the user didn't write in ALL CAPS in his edit summaries. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, the source provided makes no mention of Selmedica. seicer | talk | contribs 20:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

... and removed most of the content on the page. It was either...

• Unsourced,
• Original research,
• Sources do not match the text,
• Link spam,
• Duplicate references. seicer | talk | contribs 20:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Just did one more small change. This seems resolved now? Anybody add any warnings/blocks anywhere or are they unwarranted until the problem re-arises? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is markswikiinto clearly the Selmedica entry was created by a competitor of the company taking advantage of Wikipedia's high exposure. Almost all of the information provided is 100% false and libelous and as you can see from the sources cited completely unsubstantiated. I did provide an edit summary for every edit I made, did they not show up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markswikinto (talk • contribs) 20:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your edit summaries are there. Please don't use ALLCAPS THOUGH. They are easily confused with combatitiveness and yelling and are unnecessary. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitic personal attack by WebHamster

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

No administrative action required. I fear Boodlesthecat will end up being blocked if he continues to agitate, and suggest he calms down. Neıl ☎ 21:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I had brought an account of severe antisemitic ranting by EliasAlucard to WP:ANI here; that user is now indefinitely blocked. In the course of the discussion, in which some editors were challenging my bringing the case, WebHamster wrote

Oy ve - It sounds like someone in this discussion is trying to do their best to portray (and maintain) a certain Jewish stereotype... they're doing a bang up job at it too! --WebHamster 16:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

When asked to explain the comment, he wrote

To clarify: "Jewish stereotype" not "stereotypical Jewish editor". No mention of "editor" in my comment. Likewise please note the inclusion of "portray" as opposed to "is an". --WebHamster 16:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

When asked yet again for further clarification of these elliptical comments, WebHamster wrote

if I wanted to clarify what I was saying any more I would have done so in the first place. It's all in the eye of the beholder in these politically-correct times. Let's just say Boodles is trying to do an impression of Woody Allen--WebHamster 23:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In that response, WebHamster linked to "an impression of Woody Allen" to an obscure blog which finally clarified the nature of WebHamster's antisemtic personal attack. In that link, the only mention of Woody Allen is

"...in the Woody role of course .. he would just make the perfect whiny neurotic jew!"

WebHamstercontinued to defend his slurs when challenged by other editors here.

These obnoxiously antisemitic personal attacks are made doubly offensive by the snide and faux-obscurantist manner in which WebHamster flings the slurs and provides patronizing mock haughtiness to justify them. It's dismaying not only to have to navigate a rough road to get action taken against a rabid antisemite like EliasAlucard, but to also have to endure gratuitous attempts at intimidation via antisemitic slurs such as those flung unrepentantly by WebHamster. I would like an apology and appropriate action taken in response to this nastiness. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Addendum: in response to this posting, WebHamster is continuing his antisemitic rants here. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• You got to be kidding! You just come out of a 24 hour block and you at this again? Are you on self destruct mission? If anyone says anything remotly to chritisize you you scream Jew hatter. I recommend to block you for 72 hours being that you have not learned your lesson and have not humbled yourself. If you keep treating people this way you give yourself and Jewish people a bad name. Please just let it go and go back to editing before you will be complainig against an unfair long block. Igor Berger (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• I strongly endorse the block of EliasAlucard but I don't see any anti-semitism in what WH wrote. And Igor, the remark about how he would "give himself and Jewish people a bad name" was over the top. Please don't repeat that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  I was speaking as one Jewish person to another and did not mean it to be personal. But we as Jewish people cannot get insulted every time someone says something that may make as feel bad and make a big thing out of it. We are all grown ups here. If Boodlesthecat is taking it personal I would like to appologize for that. But we need to let things rest. Igor Berger (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Other than two small, perhaps ill-advised, minor jokes, I don't see any anti-semitic rant. This issue seems a total non-starter, except by the person who created this thread, which only serves to draw attention to his own prior bad behavior. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Insinuating that someone protesting vicous antisemitism and Holocuaset denialism is "a whiny neurotic jew" is cool around here, Jayron32? Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It isn't. Putting words into my mouth which I never spoke is not either. Stop it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that insinuating that something written by someone else in a link on a blog owned by a different user accurately describing Woody Allen (you are not Woody Allen) is not even remotely grounds for anything. If you disagree that Woody Allen portrays a neurotic Jew, then you have no clue who Woody Allen is. There is nothing even remotely anti-Semitic here. --Smashville^BONK! 21:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest this thread gets closed. Soon. It is unproductive, it does not build an encyclopedia, and full of insinuations and misunderstandings. If everyone was in the same room instead of on separate computers, this would more than 100% likely be a nonissue. How 'bout let it be a non-issue? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, there is a significant difference between this and the last thread, I think that Boodles is being overreactive. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blocks requested

LeonaCatherine (talk · contribs) and Rangeguide (talk · contribs) are clearly sockpuppets of the single purpose account Burk Hale (talk · contribs). See their series of edits (stretching back nearly a year, but recently resuming again) to the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress article. I would have blocked them all myself if not for my involvement in a content dispute in that article. Indef blocks of all three are requested. · jersyko talk 13:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved down the page from the mire above. Please consider blocks. Thanks. · jersyko talk 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Rangeguide (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a sock, and Burk Hale (talk · contribs) for 24 hours. These are admittedly the same user, and they've both been used to edit-war on the article in the past 24-48 hours. I'm being somewhat lenient with the Burk Hale account because there have been a few dog-ate-my-homework type excuses put forth and I'm in a generous mood, though I wouldn't object to an indef block. I did warn Burk Hale that if he continues edit-warring to insert material he's directly connected to, that he would be liable to sanctions for disruptive COI editing.

As to LeonaCatherine (talk · contribs), this user claims to be a separate person though there is clearly at the very least a real-life connection which would constitute meatpuppetry. It's also possible this is a sockpuppet account. I'm asking for additional input on how to handle this account - please chime in. MastCell ^Talk 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

IP address jumping vandal

A user in the 99.145.2.xxx and 99.141.227.xxx range is vandalizing User_talk:Oxymoron83 and User talk:NawlinWiki. As soon as they're blocked, they just come back with another IP address and continue the vandalism. Is a range block possible? Corvus cornix_talk 23:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

99.145.2.0/24has already been blocked, range 99.141.212.0/24 has not, yet.--Hu12 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit broader than that ... 99.141.208 - 99.141.223 at least. I think all relevant pages are semi-protected now. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

They usually get bored after a while - I was involved in a similar situation where each time an IP was blocked, another one popped up in its place a short period later. Range blocks are tricky. If you block them one by one, they tend to show signs of weariness or stop altogether. Nobody is that tenacious. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Tillich

Could we have help here? The situation has broken down into an edit war, primarily because one SPA user, Saul Tillich (talk · contribs), is now persistently reverting against consensus and making article development impossible. See [50]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I issued a final warning on User talk:Saul Tillich. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thx. I don't think there's any provable COI, though. I think it's just a name chosen to reflect an agenda. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:76.91.240.181 attempting to use RICO to ensure her text is added to an article

The article Footprints (poem) reports on a real-world dispute over the authorship of a text. User:76.91.240.181 has attempted (many times) to remove references to the dispute and assert that one person (whom she claims to be) is the true author. After several attempts to point this out, she has [51] not only accused me of a crime in reverting her edits (I'm not sure what the offence is supposed to be) but also threatened the use of RICO against me, or possibly against Wikipedia, I'm not sure, for reverting her edits. Are these legal threats within the meaning of WP:LEGAL or should this be dealt with in another way? Marnanel (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Most definitely. The user should be blocked for making legal threats. Corvus cornix_talk 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

She claims to be Carolyn Joyce Carty. Corvus cornix_talk 23:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP address for 24 hours. Bearian (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also blocked the author as noted at User talk:Carolynfujii. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Zandweb

Zandweb (talk · contribs) has posted a antisemitic YouTube video on Purim. When asked to clarify, he left comments on Purim and on my talkpage finding some justification in the Bible. Could someone have a look at this editor's behaviour and consider an appropriate response? JFW | T@lk 01:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• This rather incomprehensible article Iranian genocides that he created appears to be linked. Not sure how this got past NPP. Black Kite 01:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. JFW puts article into a wheelbarrow and carts it off to PROD JFW | T@lk 01:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You should just CSD the article it is clearly disrupt and racist. Igor Berger (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As for that video, besides it being propaganda and denigrating, it's also a spam link. Just remove it each time it's added per WP:EL. I'm sure this is resolved already, but just wanted to drop that in. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Final warning provided to user:Coloane and a request for a personal apology to Orderinchaos left. Colane appears to understand that personal attacks will no longer be tolerated under any circumstances. Several other editors also commented along those lines.--VS ^talk 02:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been dealing with Coloane (talk · contribs), who seems to have taken particular personal exception to me since I implemented a topic ban after a lengthy discussion here at AN/I in late January. [52] However, the racism and prejudice with which he is attempting to bait me at the present time ([53], [54]) are completely unacceptable and an obvious violation of WP:NPA. The ironic thing is his false accusations of racism towards others in recent days (e.g. [55]).

On this occasion, it was completely unprovoked - I was asked on my talk page for an opinion on a matter [56], I gave it [57], and that was used as an excuse to attack me - at first levelling almost comically over-the-top accusations at myself as well as his original disputants (eg. [58]) before adopting this new tack in the last 24 hours. The user has a long history of such attacks towards other contributors and of being disruptive (this was the reason for the original topic ban, after episodes like this).

It should be noted that OhanaUnited, despite the venue being his talk page, is only marginally involved - he has attempted to calm the troubled seas in recent days. Orderinchaos 01:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Given the date and time difference between your warning and the previous offensive edits I am going to provide a final warning to Coloane. I will invite him to apologise also. Any further Personal Attacks will result in my blocking him for an appropriate period of time (unless someone beats me to that block).--VS ^talk 01:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You will find this entertaining, I just told user Coloane to come here because he was complaining at Jimbo's talk page. [here] is the diff of his post. Just here to tell you guys, I do not want to get involved. Rgoodermote  02:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

well I am not going to give any comment here and play the game with Orderinchaos. I feel quite tried of it. Thanks! Coloane (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• As you will see Orderinchaos despite polite requests from myself and other editors Coloane is unable to bring himself to apologise. I have left a final warning on his page and will welcome your direct request to me for blocking should he re-offend to you personally. Of course if he re-offends to another editor you will take the action you are entitled to as an Admin. Unless you object I will close this thread in 30 minutes or so?--VS ^talk 02:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would close this if I were you steve, by the way no clue who you were talking to but...I am not an admin. Rgoodermote  02:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ahm talking to Orderinchaos - who is an admin. Cheers--VS ^talk 02:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I mis-read that, sorry about that. Anyways I hope this all goes well, I am just going to slink back into my corner. Rgoodermote  02:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does anyone else find this odd?

Resolved

 – blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A new user immediately subst'ing a blocked sockpuppet's various css and js pages into their own. Another sockpuppet or just weird behaviour? --Closedmouth (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's supicious enough for a block... Done. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

there's an explanation for that someone's cloning sockpuppets EraserGirl (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:99.141.221.145

Resolved

for now

The IP jumping vandal is back. And now he's being reallllllly disgusting. Corvus cornix_talk 05:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mdsummermsw PROD's and AFD's

This is basically my last step before this heads to RFC. User:Mdsummermsw continues to prod articles with no notice. He never marks them for improvement just prods, as you can see by his user page dozens and dozens of articles. He is obsessed with notability criteria and his arguments are getting increasingly pointy. Nominating albums with imminent release dates citing WP:Music [59]. He also has a habit of not taking enough time to look at what he is proding, such as he here where he prod'd it as being an unreleased album [60]. If you look through the list on his user page you will find many examples of things that are clearly notable that he has nominated [61] [62][63]Among others . He seems to be trying to prove some point about notability, and seems to be actually asking for an RFC. Ridernyc (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

He never marks them for improvement just prods,

"never"? e.g., Hittman: [64][65][66][67]

And a few others:[68][69][70][71][72]

as you can see by his user page dozens and dozens of articles.

...any of which went through AfD, ending in deletions.

He is obsessed with notability criteria

Wikipedia has notability criteria for very good reasons.

and his arguments are getting increasingly pointy.

I can only state that I am not trying to disrupt wikipedia, nor am I trying to prove a point. I'm trying to get rid of articles on unsourced (or poorly sourced), non-notable, unreleased albums.

Nominating albums with imminent release dates citing WP:Music [73].

Albums that haven't been released are unreleased.

He also has a habit of not taking enough time to look at what he is proding, such as he here where he prod'd it as being an unreleased album [74].

The first time you took issue with this was for what you said was "actually more like a demo". As I explained, the article and its few sources called it lots of things: a "demo album (which) has never been released in any form", "a suite ... but not a complete album", an "alleged recording" [[Category:Unreleased albums]] at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Ballad_of_Stuffed_Trigger. This case was a poorly written article. The lead tells us it's "I Murdered Mommy is a the name of an abandoned cd-rom project by avant rock band The Residents" and put it in the category "Unreleased albums". I'm still not sold on the notability of this one [75]. I'll get back to it.

If you look through the list on his user page you will find many examples of things that are clearly notable that he has nominated Homegrown (album)

Neil Young is clearly notable. Homegrown, in my opinion, is not clearly notable.

Human Highway

Please be sure of your accusations before you make them. I've never touched that article. [76]

[77]

Are you also taking User:Ten Pound Hammer to task for voting to delete the same article? Seems I'm not the only one who isn't sold on that one.

He seems to be trying to prove some point about notability,

If I'm "trying to prove" any point about notability, it's the same point I "try to prove" about verifiability, reliable sources, NPOV, etc.

and seems to be actually asking for an RFC.

I'm not hoping for an RFC, but you are certainly welcome to start one. If you find a meaningful consensous that says I shouldn't PROD and AfD based on Notability I will certainly stop. Or, perhaps you can mobilize them to make whatever changes (if any) you feel are needed in the guidelines. Personally, I think requiring substantial coverage in reliable sources is a good standard.

Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, there isn't any administrator action being asked for, nor is there any that would be appropriate. Ridernyc, a better first step would have been to talk to Mdsummermsw on his/her talk page about your concerns. From the random edits I looked at, I see no evidence that Mdsummermsw is not acting in good faith, nor does he/she appear to be violating any of the deletion policies, so I see no reason to take any action at this point. Natalie (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Natalie Erin's assessment here. What admin action are you hoping for? Saying "this is the last step before an RFC" seems overly dramatic. You obviously have a dispute about content/appropriateness of unreleased albums with Midsummermsw in that you think they should be kept and he/she thinks otherwise. I personally don't see enough justification for an RFC, but by all means go for it. I think mediation or dispute resolution, if not attempted yet, would seem to be a better venue. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have dicussed this issue on his talk and totally ignored. Ridernyc (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see one message, which points out things you want Mdsummermsw to pay more attention to. Is it at all possible that he/she took your advice and didn't feel like any further comment was necessary? Regardless, now you both know that you disagree, and you can either hash this out on one of your talk pages or agree to avoid each other. Either way, there really isn't anything here requiring administrator attention. Natalie (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No because things got even worse today. Look at the 2 unreleased Neil Young albums he sent to AFD. Ridernyc (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, what? What are you asking administrators to do here? Natalie (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Prods and AfD's are often completely fine without other efforts by the prodder on the articles. For instance if the prodder thinks the article's subject is genuinely not notable at all. People are free to add the 'hang on' template and improve articles they think are encyclopedic. Removing stuff that is genuinely not suitable for wikipedia is a great thing to do IMHO, and Ridernyc you should try to WP:AGF that other editors are trying to improve wikipedia by prodding etc.Special Random (Merkinsmum) 22:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the amount of Prods. I have literally spent the last 2 hours going through all his prods and AFD's and finding sources. His recent batch of AFD's are not going well, more then a few people have commented that the articles never should have been brought to AFD. I Have no problem with proding things and sending things to AFD, just look at my edit history. The problem is sending so many things in such a short amount of time and being clearly wrong a high percentage of the time. Ridernyc (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Small point of fact: prods do not have to be contested with the hangon template. The prod can simply be removed by anyone for any reason, and that is taken as contesting the prod. Again, if you feel that this user is nominating a lot of things incorrectly the best tack would be to start a conversation with him/her. There is not rule that says he/she cannot nominate a hundred articles a day for deletion, whether prod or AfD, and you haven't demonstrated at all that this user is acting in bad faith. And for the fourth time, I think, what admin action are you asking for? Natalie (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that excessive nominations in a short period of time , especially excessive ill-thought-out nominations, do raise problems for other editors, and are not conducive to the orderly removal of material that ought to be removed--and the improvement and keeping of what ought to be kept. To nominate an article for deletion as "No released albums" when the article plainly shows two released albums as for Kiley Dean, shows carelessness and makes unnecessary work for multiple editors, preventing the proper consideration of what needs consideration. (I make no comment about actual notability--I cannot judge in this subject) There's nothing wrong with prodding a lot--I wish people would use prod more in general--but it should have some reasonable relation to the need for deletion. Nominating for afd without follow the steps and leaving others to complete them shows a similar lack of consideration. Nominating for speedy without looking for a redirect when its just a case of finding the right title and leaving it for others as in [78] is also inconsiderate. A certain degree of inconsiderateness can amount to the obstruction of normal process. The appropriate reason for bring this here was to bring this pattern to general attention. DGG (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like generally very good work is being done - lots of junk being cleared out by an editor willing to take the time to do it, with perhaps an occasional oversight or lapse, but of a purely trifling nature. Since there is no suggestion here that the editor's actions require admin intervention, I suggest this be promptly closed. Philosophical differences are not stuff for ANI. Meanwhile, I have a barnstar to award. Eusebeus (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like an Admin, to go through all of his deleted articles and make sure none of them were mistakes. I'm worried how many things might have sliped by before anyone noticed what was going on. In the last week the a large number of his prods have been contested and and even larger proportion of his AFD's are failing. I could easily picture a admin missing something like the I Murdered Mommy mistake. Ridernyc (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked through the first few and found gems like "Open was going to be an album by Q-Tip - the follow-up to Amplified - but like Kamaal the Abstract, this was canceled for not being commercial enough. Tracks will re-appear on his album The Renaissance in 2008." and "Take It Easy is the first single for rapper Rich Boy for his second album Tears of Joy produced by Polow da Don that's scheduled for release in June 2008." Mdsummermsw's prods seem pretty sound. Orderinchaos 01:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many like this After the Astronaut (album), After the Astronaut (Butthole Surfers), After the Astronaut (Butthole Surfers album). Not sure why After the Astronaut would be deleted [79], if it was a considered a non-notable album it should have been redirected. This is only the second deleted title I have checked I'm sure there are others. Ridernyc (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is the willingness to misinterpret rules in order to attempt to delete articles and information, and the borderline incivility of collecting the pelts of articles they got deleted on their user page. The context of "unreleased" in the sentence in WP:MUSIC is clearly a reference to demos, promos, bootlegs, and historical albums that have never seen legal release, such as Smile (Beach Boys album), Songs from the Black Hole, Chrome Dreams, etc. It clearly does not refer to confirmed albums with release dates in the near future; only Mdsummermsw claims that it does. Other editors agreed that this interpretation was so offbase that they changed the guideline to eliminate any possible misinterpretation or misuse of the word "unreleased". The result of this? Mdsummermsw is now going around removing confirmed, sourced release dates from album info boxes based on one phrase in Template:Infobox_Album#Released. The section states in full: "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified, using a single occurrence of {{Start date}}, for example {{Start date|2007|7|31}} (or {{Start date|2007|7}} or {{Start date|2007}} if the exact date isn't known). Later release dates can be mentioned in a Release history section." - This clearly refers to albums with multiple issues released on different dates. However, Mdsummermsw is, I believe based on the pattern of behavior, willfully decontextualizing and misinterpreting the section by isolating the portion "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified". Let me state that again: after failing to delete several articles based on a clear misinterpretation of the WP:MUSIC guideline, the editor has begun deleting confirmed, valid information from the article based on the tense of a verb from a sentence that has been taken from instructions for an infoboxe and stripped of its content. This isn't about successful AfDs for articles lacking sources - (Yes, sometimes Mdsummermsw's AfDs are correct, but my VCR clock has also been accurate twice today, too) - this is about a pattern of behavior that clearly indicates WP:tendentious editing. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 12:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not removing confirmed information. Immediately before reading this, I restored this edit, removing the future release date "Released = March 25 2008". My edit to the talk page clearly explains that the information remains in the body of the article. "Released = March 25 2008" states that the album was released on March 25, 2008. It probably will be, it might not. On March 26, someone checking the article will see wikipedia saying that it was released. This one is somewhat higher profile than most debut albums, so it might be edited as soon as any change to that date were announced. Others would likely fly by unchecked. I would welcome a change to the info box to allow for scheduled release dates or support for other ideas. One possibility is changing "Released" in the info box to "Release date" and ensuring scheduled dates are so noted. An awkward work around would change "Released = March 25 2008" to "Released = March 25 2008 (scheduled)". At the moment, this seems like the wrong venue for this discussion though. If you would like to suggest admin action against me at this time, please do. Otherwise, I'm taking this piece to other venues. I'll note this on your talk page. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Social networking?

The following all appeared in, essentially, one big lump on New Pages:

• 21:18, February 26, 2008 User:Bbenjamin100 (hist) [12 bytes] Bbenjamin100 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:18, February 26, 2008 User:Ro1109 (hist) [0 bytes] Ro1109 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with 'hello ==yes== we already know that')
• 21:17, February 26, 2008 User:2diefor (hist) [10 bytes] 2diefor (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '[[/sandbox]')
• 21:15, February 26, 2008 User:Lianar86 (hist) [12 bytes] Lianar86 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:15, February 26, 2008 User:Bensy1745 (hist) [12 bytes] Bensy1745 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:15, February 26, 2008 User:Amushib1 (hist) [12 bytes] Amushib1 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:15, February 26, 2008 User:Jnl91986 (hist) [12 bytes] Jnl91986 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '{[/sandbox}]')
• 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Jibarra27 (hist) [12 bytes] Jibarra27 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Sozlem (hist) [12 bytes] Sozlem (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Ashah103 (hist) [12 bytes] Ashah103 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Jrivera103 (hist) [12 bytes] Jrivera103 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Jachiappetta (hist) [12 bytes] Jachiappetta (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Rebeccamiriam (hist) [12 bytes] Rebeccamiriam (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Noromaxp (hist) [12 bytes] Noromaxp (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Janegrace (hist) [12 bytes] Janegrace (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Dingdongdingdong123414 (hist) [12 bytes] Dingdongdingdong123414 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:SJBacchus (hist) [12 bytes] SJBacchus (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Seliuk (hist) [12 bytes] Seliuk (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')

Any idea what's going on? The few edits I see are not exactly encouraging. --Calton | Talk 01:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like all sockpuppet accounts. Just indef block them all. Igor Berger (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, don't block them all. Probably kids in a community college "How to edit Wikipedia" class. No harm done yet, they're just editing their sandboxes. That's what sandboxes are for... --barneca (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, you're completely right. They're all editing their sandboxes. This is cool. Darkspots (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We should have agreed on a strategy there, Darkspots - I start at the bottom and you at the top, As it was our {{welcome}} templates collided in the middle of the list somewhere ☺ Tonywalton ^Talk 01:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I only welcomed a couple at random--some of those kids looked like any distraction would rattle 'em even more. Except the totally bored "hello ==yes== we already know that" guy who ignored the whole exercise and blanked his page. Darkspots (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You want to really rattle 'em? Technically, we should notify them of this thread... :) --barneca (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And block their teacher for meatpuppetry! Seriously, I'm hoping that the links in the welcome template may interest at least some of them and we may end up with a worthwhile contributor or two. Even the guy who already knows it may (if he attends Wikipedia 102) wonder why he's suddenly got an orange bar when he logs in and think "Heyyy...". On the other hand [[CAT:CSD]] may see ome activity... Tonywalton ^Talk 01:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Barneca good call. I thought they were all sockpuppets..:) Igor Berger (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How come I never got to take a Wikipedia class? Useight (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking a history class (which fulfills the history major's computing requirement) that requires students to edit wikipedia articles about specific American abolitionists. Which will require 32 other students create accounts to edit articles so they can prove to the professor that they did the edits. I don't think these people are in my class because the professor hasn't told us to create sandboxes. But keep an open mind about it, because you will probably see mass editing on Thursday before 3:00 PM Eastern, and probably pages with uncited material and improper wiki markups. I myself will be editing the Samuel Cornish article sooner or later. I'd say it would definitely rattle the students to be warned about this thread, but they can't help it if professors give stupid assignments like this, classes that require a student to edit Wikipedia. They should edit if they want. Rebelyell2006 (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If I ever have a class like that (which is a possibility), my professor will have lots of fun going through my 12,000+ undeleted edits. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps it is time for Wikipedia to develop a formal policy in reference to class assignments. We have had several good experiences with such projects, and a number of less-positive ones. (I especially remember the conflict-resolution assignment, which had new editors wading into minefields such as Waterboarding.) The best assignments are the ones where the instructor lets the project know of the assignment, and where the new editors discuss possibly contentious changes before making them. Be Bold can be perceived as vandalism coming from a brand-new account. Rattling new editors is a very bad idea (Don't Bite the Newbies), and I'm a bit disappointed that some of the editors above suggested it after the likely reason had been identified. Horologium (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If you re-read the thread, I don't think you'll find anyone seriously suggesting we intentionally rattle new editors. --barneca (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking over all of this, isn't it possible to create some kind of wikiproject that could welcome such classes and, more importantly, give pointers to the teachers assigning them? Sethie (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We already have Wikipedia:School and university projects and Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination. Graham87 08:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Odd editing

I noticed user Mangostar [[80]] has been on a page creation flurry, creating pages about US relations with other countries, while adding in a POV tag, as he created the pages?

All the material appears to just be copied from a US Gov website.

I wanted some heads up from people with more wiki experience then I to look at this.Sethie (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, American government publications are public domain - one can copy them freely. I'd expect they have POV problems though. Have you tried asking Mangostar what she's up to? WilyD 21:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I did - Revolving Bugbear 21:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/, and it is in the public domain. Prodego ^talk 21:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My question is more about policy on cut and pasting pages? I don't know the whole thing just seems a bit off. Sethie (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting public domain material, so long as it's sourced, is perfectly proper. A lot of our articles started that way, when the data was copied and pasted from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Brittanica. Corvus cornix_talk 21:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to a question on the POV tags on my talk page, I'm adding them because obviously as an interested policy not everything the US says is entirely neutral, but I think there's a lot of good factual material in there and I don't have the expertise to judge what's a neutral assessment and what's not. (Hopefully others that know more will simply remove them if they think the articles look okay.) I think it's certainly good to be cutting and pasting this because these are great starting points for research and wikification, and wiki should be more aggressive in my opinion about making good use of the mountains of PD information free for the taking that's created by the US government. Mangostar (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. — Coren ^(talk) 22:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to add a blurb on the articles' Talk pages about why you put the pov tag on the article. POV tags without explanations on Talk pages tend to get removed unilaterally. Even if it's just a canned template or something. Corvus cornix_talk 22:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for others input and Mango- it all makes sense now. Sethie (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that the POV tag says that the neutrality of the article is "disputed" - but there is no dispute about these pages, as Mangostar makes clear in the notice that's been placed. Mangostar questions that they might not be neutral, but there is no genuine dispute. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But many of them are blatantly non-neutral, and I'm sure many others are more subtly so. I'm not sure of a better tag, there's the nominating for neutrality check one but I'm not sure I actually want to nominate anything. Mangostar (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What about a bolded heading at the top of the page that says something on the order of "The following material comes from a United States government website, and may not represent a neutral point of view"? Even if someone goes through these articles and vouches for their accuracy, it's still worthwhile having them labelled as government-produced material. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It already says that at the bottom of the article, which (along with the POV tag until it's reviewed) I think is fine. Mangostar (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestine Children's Relief Fund

Sockpuppets vandalizing article by blanking cited section after multiple editors have worked to make an acceptable version. See the article edit history. Some include: Redprince (talk · contribs) 66.65.113.244 (talk · contribs) 128.59.167.218 (talk · contribs) 160.39.243.150 (talk · contribs) Gimmephive (talk · contribs) User:160.39.244.29. The IPs are all in NYC and all except one are at Columbia University. Everytime it gets to the point of a 3rr vio or final vandal warning he shifts computers or alternates between registered names. It's driving me batshit trying to keep up. They're clearly all connected - see the edit summaries. Many of them have even edited the same articles in the past. --Veritas (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, sorry. I moved this to AIV. This may not have been the correct forum. --Veritas (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd consider semi-protection of the article if it's needed. At least it will make wait it out for the usernames and blocks will be more effective. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I requested semi protection and it was denied (not enough activity apparently??) No one has been blocked either. The AIV report has been sitting there for a long time now and no one has bothered with it. I'm about to give up. I have also gone to 3RR and Checkuser. --Veritas (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The semi-protection denial actually makes some sense. There's only been two days of vandalism, and fairly slow and blatant as well. The blocks are more annoying though. Since it's a series of rotating IP addresses, blocking would be pointless (and would have be in short durations anyways). I've added some more information (all sourced, but probably won't be popular) to the article, and am now watching it. If it gets serious again, message me and I'll personally keep watch. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Rynort returns

A while back User:RYNORT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was indefinitely banned for multiple incidents of massive incivility, personal attacks, and generally reprehensible behavior. A coordinated effort came from 69.244.181.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which was also banned by several admins for the same sorts of behavior. I filed this ANI report back in January regarding some malice from RYNORT, and in this earlier ANI report I pretty much laid out the idiosyncratic behavior that linked the two. This IP has been trolling and making personal attacks, most recently on my talk page. RFCU may be appropriate, but based on the IP's own gross incivility I think the case is made for blocking the IP entirely. Thanks for the help. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Slow-motion vandal

138.32.32.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP address is a slow-motion (i.e. not now) vandal with a thing for Gino Vanelli, along with several other articles. There have been multiple warnings, including two level-4s, since a 3-hour block in October, and the IP has recently vandalized again at Vannelli and, two days ago, Barnsdall, Oklahoma. Perhaps a block extending over several days would be noticed and prevent further abuse—unlikely, I know, but obviously the continuing warnings aren't helping to curb the behavior and simply posting more and more level-3 or level-4 warnings starts to become a little silly. (WHOIS shows it in a range owned by ConocoPhillips). -- Michael Devore (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Jumping IP Editor

This editor 76.1.244.185 has been doing some minor disruptive edits to Republican Party (United States) presidential debates, 2008 for some time. He keeps changing the order of the candidates in the list, and does not offer any explanation, even when asked. His IP address varies from day to day. That is the current one. I just gave him another warning. If he is blocked, he'll probably show up tomorrow with a new IP. He does make good, non-vandalism edits to other articles. I don't think it would be beneficial to semi-protect the page, as other unregistered users regularly make good edits to the page. How is this type of thing normally dealt with? Would it be possible for someone to set up a bot that automatically reverts this edit every time it is made? I reported this to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and was referred here, as this is "not a case of obvious vandalism." JBFrenchhorn (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

When you say IP changes do you mean the last 3 digist 76.1.244.*** or completely new IP range? If the last 3 digits change the IP range can be blocked from editing and I would think a topic ban can be instituted the same way. If an editor does good edits to other articles but vandalizes one article or one topic that may be POV problem and we should try to help the editor adjust to our community and become a productive member. Try to incurage the editor to regester an account so they can become a true member of our community. Igor Berger (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is a range. The last four digits change. Here are some:

• 76.1.244.185
• 76.1.240.184
• 76.1.244.86
• 76.1.247.99
• 76.1.244.240
• 76.1.243.221

I will follow your suggestion and try to talk to the editor and encourage him to register. From what I have seen so far, it may be hard to get him to talk. But we'll see. Thanks for your help. I'll bring it up again here if I can't resolve it with him. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does look like it is all coming from the same place. But best to try to encourage the person to become part of community rather than using bans and blocks. Punitive does not really win trust and just creates hatred. Igor Berger (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

BQ

Request full protection of the page until the editors fixation with the self promotion of his user name, and the associated theatrics and melodrama is resolved. 70.19.125.82 (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:RFPP--Jac16888 (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is pure harassment from a permanently blocked user: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TomPhan. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Robertkamau85 single-purpose spamming account

Perhaps someone should let him know that Wikipedia links are nofollow? At any rate, a block seems in order, but it's not strictly vandalism, so I brought it here instead of AIV. Thanks! Jouster  (whisper) 11:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Melon ?

greetings. This is totally unrelated to Scolas, but :

I just remarked a bunch of accounts created pretty closely : user:F MELON, user:THE DELETER MELON, User:VandalMelon, User:Free as a melon, all created within 15 minutes. They've not been used yet.

If you have a multiaccount vandal using that kindof names, it's your man.

Darkoneko (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:EPIC MASTER maybe? He likes using lots of themed vandal accounts created at once. Hut 8.5 17:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Racist fork

Resolved

- deleted by KillerChihuahua Shell ^babelfish 13:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Pratul19 has created a racist fork of Andrew Symonds at Monkey symonds. Symonds was racially abused under the name, can someone quickly flush this disgusting piece of trash (and BLP hotspot) and show our racist friend the door? --Fredrick day (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Pegasus Speedy deletions

In fact he is deleting many articles, in this way. He should use speedy button more wisely. --- A. L. M. 15:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If an article cannot meet Wikipedia notability as set per guidelines it maybe deleted eventhough you contested the deletion request. Please read WP:notability and try making the article in your sandbox User:ALM_scientist/sanbox before atempting to take it live to mainspace. You may also want to consult an admin before bringing live in order to insure the article is ready for mainspace. Igor Berger (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Article has not been deleted as CSD#A7 has been withdrawn. Article needs fleshing out a bit, but notability is asserted. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have looked at the article you created Asad Abidi and I will recommend it for speedy deletion myself. Wikipedia is not a place to promote people or things. Igor Berger (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Rodhullandemu disagree with you and I think anyone who knows about what IEEE Fellow means will disagree too with you. You are welcome to nominate it for deletion but no need to be speedy (when under contest). --- A. L. M. 15:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Either you need to rewrite your WP:PROF or keep the article there. What IEEE fellow means is following.

The grade of Fellow recognizes unusual distinction in the profession, and is conferred by invitation of the Board of Directors to members of outstanding and extraordinary qualifications and experience in IEEE-designated fields, and who have made important individual contributions to one or more of these fields. Every year, less than 1 member in a thousand can be promoted to Fellow. On January 1, 2007 there were 5,777 IEEE Fellows [14] These members include Fellow candidates that are selected by the IEEE Fellow committee [15] In 2007, 268 "Senior Members" were promoted to Fellows ... --- A. L. M. 15:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is deleted again speedily. This time they were fast. They even does not give time to contest. The tag appears only for 1 minutes. Wikipedia is improving. --- A. L. M. 15:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to make references to his work to meet the WP:PROF. Please try building an article in your sanbox to meet the WP:BLP and WP:PROF guidelines. Igor Berger (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not give a shit. Bye bye. -- A. L. M. 15:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To be fair there was an assertion of notability that he is a Fellow of the IEEE an award which meets the WP:PROF criteria at point #2. There was also a reference which backed it up. --JD554 (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If there was a contested speedy, and that speedy nom was withdrawn, and the original editor has stated he is working on it and notability has been asserted as per Rodhullandemu above, I don't think it is acceptable to re nom for speedy so hastily. DuncanHill (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, Fellowship of the IEEE is an assertion of notability, see IEEE_Fellow#Fellow_Grade. The article is still there, however, and it should be PROD'ded if necessary. We should not be annoying decent editors with this misunderstanding of specialist notability. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the speedy deletion, per JD554's reasoning. Now it's up to A.L.M. to improve the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely it's up to the community to improve it, or are we conceding ownership? DuncanHill (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I also left a note to the editor to the effect of building the article process. Igor Berger (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, an AfD notice has now been added to the article by a third party. DuncanHill (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Marion Giant 1999

In the history section of the Marion, Indiana article, a passage describing lynchings that occurred in the 1930s has been repeatedly cut by User:Marion Giant 1999 on the grounds that it reflects badly on the community. I've mentioned on his talk page that, though I understand his concern, this isn't sufficient grounds for removing content, and have encouraged him to discuss the issue with other users on the town's talk page and see if some editing might satisfy his objections. Unfortunately he hasn't shown any willingness to cooperate — he deleted a request for comment from the town's talk page, and states here that he still considers that the section constitutes a smear against the town and intends to keep deleting it (presumably no matter what). Any suggestions on how to proceed? Thanks! Huwmanbeing ☀★ 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've left a warning. If he persists, I'll block for disruptive editing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Since Sarcasticidealist beat me to the talk page, I reverted the improper deletion of the properly sourced and cited content in question. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"White people are cannibal vampires"

• Adnanmuf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.72.88.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Well, the headline says it all. (Actual diff: [81])

This diff ([82]) confirms the IP and the account are the same person (although it is obvious anyway.)

This user has a history of pushing original-research theories of genetics, etc, with an unpleasant and somewhat hysterical tone, but I didn't realize how far off the wagon he really is. I propose a community ban of Adnanmuf and any sock puppets.

Support ban, but I might just be an Infidel Zombie, so my opinion may not have equal weight. ThuranX (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for a year and the IP (which seems stable) for a month. By the way, weren't there suspicions Adnanmuf is himself a sock of a banned user anyway? Feel free to up to indef if anybody thinks it makes a difference. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A community ban needs more formal structure than this, and it needs to be formatted properly. Please consider this if you intend to propose such a ban upon the user. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. A community ban requires that no admin be willing to unblock the editor. Are you willing to unblock him? Thatcher 12:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No I am not. However, in WP:BAN, it is stated that due community consideration is needed. Personally, I do not think one ANI section of numerous others is adequate, but that's just me. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Further: Perhaps a separate section proposing the ban itself would be a good first step? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that "the white europpeans intolerance for lactose made them drink blood"[[83] when soy-based milk alternatives are so widely available. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Strange - I thought they were one of the most lactose-tolerant groups, and the whole blood-drinkingeating thing was just for the fun of it. Guettarda (talk) 05:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a notice: I deliberately didn't declare my block a ban in whatever formal sense that has. It's a simple block for disruption. Its length is calculated according to my estimate of the likelihood that this user will mend his ways after returning. Which is, well, close to zero. If anybody wants to question this or else give it a further backing through a more formal community decision, go ahead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Amarrg

Evidenced from this editor's recent edits and remarks, one can note that this editor fails to assume good faith and has issues with regards to civility.

This editor has left an edit summary that is deliberately in bad taste evidenced here. Another editor felt the same and advised him to be more civil here. I am requesting administrator intervention in taking the appropriate course of action to delete/modify the editor's edit summary in the first diff or completely deleting that contribution.

It was only recently that I advised the editor to cool off here as he was appearing incivil on an occasion prior to this incident. He responded here with a clear assumption of bad faith against me, and deliberately chose to ignore the advice. It is perhaps as a result of the several times User:Sarvagnya has gamed the system successfully, that this editor felt that he could get away with the same. In any case, I also request that an appropriate course of action be taken against this editor (whether this be a temporary block or a warning of some sort) for his recent assumption of bad faith and incivility towards articles, myself, and User talk:John Carter - where the same is evidenced here.

Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

sheesh.. Amarrg is one of the best and most prolific editors en.wikipedia and WP:INDIA in particular, has seen in some time. When did ANI become a whineboard for the likes of ncmv to carry out malicioius smear campaigns with cherry-picked-twisted-out-of-context diffs against some of our best? And jftr, unless ncmv can substantiate/elaborate/explain/justify "...as a result of the several times User:Sarvagnya has gamed the system successfully, that this editor felt that he could get away with the same...", I demand that he retract his tripe. Sarvagnya 20:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

sheesh...an editor's past or even present contributions do not justify violating behavioural policies and guidelines. This sort of interaction cannot be condoned. And as for your demands, please feel free to make such demands during the Rfc (when it is opened asap), where I'm sure you'll make more pathetic excuses and justifications. Then once Wikipedia stops casting a blind eye to your pathetic excuses for gaming the system, I wonder if you will still be this smug in making such demands from others who are not in any way bound by them. Hmmm!

Still, what a coincidence it must have been for User:Amarrg to come to my talk page and issue several notices of him templating 'speedy deletion' on several articles relevant to Carnatic music, which I, among few other editors, have actually made any positive contributions towards. But lo! When we look at his history of contributions...wow...these are the only articles he has pushed for the deletion of...articles that I happened to have contributed to, however little or great. With the articles being deleted prior to a hang on notice being issued, it looks like he got what he wanted. And how strange that this is his only response to date for having an ANI filed against him.

In any case, twisted out of context and cherry picked? I can't help but note the trouble he goes to bring up the past of an editor in order to use it as a sole reason for rejecting behavioural advice here. Or the same can be seen here in reply to another editor who offered similar advice to him. There is nothing twisted out of context, or cherry picked about it, so again, stop trying to distract people from the issue - Amarrg's recent edits clearly show that he has deliberately failed to assume good faith in his dealings with me, as well as others. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest that the administrator looks through the editor's edits and comments within the last 24 or even 48 hours, as he has been harassing me. However, I did give him a final comment asking him not to continue with the harassment, and in the last 12 hours or so, it has paused. If it does continue, this is an active record where I am requesting that an administrator intervenes to stop such harassment if it continues. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Beyond Aston/Beyond Austin; Dopefish/Doopefish

I am really not sure where to go with this one. User:Dopefish is the webmaster for Black Sabbath drummer Bill Ward's site. Dopefish got fairly upset about the deltion of that artist's unreleased album Beyond Aston[84] (much more was on the article's talk page.

Now, along comes new User:Doopfish, supposedly the webmaster for "White Sabbath" drummer "Dollar Bill" and his album Beyond Austin.[85]

Is this a sock of Dopefish mocking wikipedia or someone else mocking Dopefish? Either way, Doopefish must go. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

... and gone. I've also speedied the hoaxalicious article. — Coren ^(talk) 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if a word about possible misuse of alternate accounts, and the potential for sanction toward the originating account wouldn't go amiss on Dopefish's talkpage? Unless similar accounts start similar hoax articles I doubt there is enough to go to WP:SSP with - so nipping it in the bud may be most effective. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the possibility of an impersonator to be roughly equally likely to that of a sock at this time. If more pop up, a CU might be worthwhile; but at this time a simple BRI seems to be sufficient. — Coren ^(talk) 23:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Adding User:Dopyfish to this, this time the article was titled Beyond Astor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Kaizer13

This editor has been rude on a regular basis. He's been blocked 5 times, since October 2007 for personal attacks and being uncivil. His recent behavior shows he has no plans to stop: [86] and [87], also see his talk page. He thinks it's alright to attack people that vandalize. Vandals or not, being rude in edit summaries isn't the correct thing to do. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Advice left; user has been blocked previously for abuse and as far as I'm concerned, he's on a "one-strike and you're out". --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

His response to your advice wasn't very nice. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lack of asian diversity vandal

This is a reoccuring problem on the article Talk:ER (TV series). A persistent soapbox pontificating vandal returns every couple of days, sometimes longer, to disparage all of the editors by labeling them as "dirty racist pigs" and insist on pushing a POV of the apparent lack of asian diversity on medical dramas. Below are some of the most recent IPs the anon has been using to promote his/her agenda. Each time myself and others attempt to combat the user through reversion, userpages are usually vandalized persistently and maliciously. A report is usually filed to WP:AIV, but it usually goes unanswered for abit due to backlogging. I'm just wondering what the best course of action is. Is a range block necessary? I usually try to avoid such a course of action, but sometimes it gets really out of hand. Should the IPs just be handled one at a time as they come? I know it is unusual for IPs to be indefinitely blocked, but is this an option? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• user:71.156.32.249
• user:71.156.32.249
• user:75.2.218.235
• user:71.156.40.220

I think it would be a bad idea to place an infinite block. Perhaps a range block is the more suitable remedy. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I would need an admin to make a judgment call on this - regarding the appropriate range that is. Also, bear in mind that the incident is not restricted to only those IPs listed above. It's been going on for sometime if one takes the time to check the history. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

IINM, I dealt with a similar vandal on Grey's Anatomy (TV series) last year, sometime before just after my promotion. Is it possible that the vandal you're dealing with now and the vandal I dealt with then are one and the same? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 19:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Also User:75.3.192.32‎ ➪HiDrNick! 20:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  Blocked for a short while. I added a welcome template just in case they weren't aware of our practices and needed some light reading while not able to edit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The vandals are most definitely one in the same - While he/she was perpetrating vandalism and WP:SOAP on Grey's Anatomy, they were simultaneously raising the same "objection" on the ER article. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is this edit similar to some of the ones he's doing on ER right now? If so, I smell a semi for ER, since I have a feeling he's going to use another IP. I also have an IP from my TP who approached me on the prot I gave Grey's Anatomy in October: 75.2.219.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (diff). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 02:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's the same individual. Exact same edits drenched in WP:POINT, WP:SOAP, and WP:CIVIL (lack). In fact, this is starting to get a little ridiculous. I had to request page protection for ER (TV series), and Talk:ER (TV series). The latter was disheartening. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Suspicious sock activity

Hi guys, I have a quandary that I would like some opinions on. User:Creamy3, User:Creamy4 and User:Creamy11... Creamy4 was "creamed" ('Scuse the pun) for vandalism and personal attacks by User:Bearian (12 hour block) and Creamy3 made a wiki-project entitled "Creamy Army Wikiproject". Their userpages are all very similiar; they have the same set up of biographies about themselves and they all seem to be involved in the Wikiproject films. They all state to be from Oregon... are they different people or are they socks? I know Creamy4 is definitely on the road to be a vandalism only account... bah, I don't know... Any ideas? Thoughts? Scarian^{Call me Pat} 16:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If the Quacking's not loud enough for you, try WP:RFCU. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I left them all notes about being constructive, I doubt they are the same person. John Reaves 16:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

John Reaves seems right - they're probably a group of friends. Judging from User:Creamy3/Creamy Army, there's a bit of an issue with social networking that might be going on. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just warned Creamy3 for making a quip ([88]) at User:Scientizzle about that failed AfD. And yes, upon closer inspection they do look like just a bunch of friends... they're treading the line finely though... Scarian^{Call me Pat} 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This could most definitely (and quickly I might add) turn into a meatpuppet farm if the users start to participate in controversial editing. Advise someone keeping on eye on things for a while. I'm dubious about users referring themselves as an "Army". Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm watchin' it...these were the concerns I had a couple of days ago, but others didn't quite see it that way. Creamy3 (talk · contribs) is a marginally-productive editor (though civility-challenged), but the other have yet to demonstrate anything positive (and, in fact, some negative) in the way of contributions. Hopefully they prove my skepticism unfounded. — Scientizzle 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed. User 74.225.XXX.XXX edits tendetiously and using multiple IPs to get around blocks

• 74.225.10.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 74.225.154.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 74.225.51.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are likely several others. This person has been editing several articles about Orlando, Florida area attractions, making changes to the locations of the attractions. Other editors have repeatedly tried to get the user to discuss the changes on talk pages first, but he refuses, and continuously makes the changes against consensus and against the pleas of other editors to stop. Individual blocks of the IPs he uses are turning into a game of Whak-a-mole, and are not productive. I have no technical knowledge of how a rangeblock works, but if I did I would do it myself. Could anothr admin help look into this and help see what can be done in this regard? Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The rangeblock you need to block is 74.225.0.0/16 - unfortunately, this is quite a large range (65534 users), and care would probably have to be taken to minimize collateral damage. krimpet✽ 19:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the recent history of Magic Kingdom, he's actually hopping across several /16 ranges, so it might just be better to try briefly semiprotecting the affected articles first. I don't think we can really know yet how large a range he can operate in. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is apparently NOT a new problem: See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Miamiboyzinhere. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The user is up to his or her 14th sock puppet, each of which has an immediate edit history of disruptive reverts in defiance of previously established consensus or hostile personal attacks. Eight of those sock puppets began editing in the same day. &#151;Whoville (talk) 00:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the same user is being discussed elsewhere on this page. &#151;Whoville (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointint out that link, Whoville. I added a bunch of background info there that points out that attempts to discuss the issue on various talk pages did take place, only to be rebuffed and told we were idiots that couldn't read a map. We asked for some pages to be semi-protected earlier today, which happened, only to have another admin pull the protection off as being unnecessary in their mind. From the editors' viewpoint, we did what we have been told to do -- get the admins involved to help sort out the issue. which brings us to this discussion and the other one already pointed out.SpikeJones (talk) 03:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And in case it matters, while we're all here talking about it, another IP -- 74.225.163.175 -- has just now started reverting all the edits back to "Orange County", "Bay Lake", etc. SpikeJones (talk) 03:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Orlando-related pages protected. See thread below for details. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppet User:Runreston still active

An earlier checkuser (see here) definitively confirmed that User:Xcstar and User:207.91.86.2 were sockpuppets of User:Racepacket, resulting in a permanent block of Xcstar. Xcstar had been used primarily to make false and defamatory edits to the Dane Rauschenberg article and other related articles. Shortly after the ban, User:Runreston was created, following the same path as Xcstar and the most recent sockpuppet check confirmed that Runreston was a likely sockpuppet of Racepacket. Runreston, in exactly the same disturbing obsession as Xcstar, has devoted nearly 90% of his edits to Dane Rauschenberg, following the same pattern of abusive edits and refusal to respect consensus. Given that Runreston is a confirmed sockpuppet, what is required to implement appropriate long-term blocks on both the sockpuppet and the puppetmaster User:Racepacket who created his newest sockpuppet almost immediately after the previous block. Alansohn (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Checkuser says likely. Runreston blocked. I suggest a final warning to Racepacket that any further such crap will likely result in a ban, not sure what others would think here. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• While Racepacket / Runreston seems to be laying low, the issue is still out there. Administrative intercession to address the continuing pattern of abuse is sorely needed. Alansohn (talk) 00:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Edison#Speaker_impedance

Resolved

Please see history? Don't know what to make of this. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverFreeSpeech (talk • contribs) 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a concern that you feel needs admin attention, please take the time to actually tell us what that is, and what action you think you should be taken. "Please see history? Don't know what to make of this." is useless, particularly when the section you point to appears to be entirely innocuous. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don’t quite know what to make of ForeverFreeSpeech’s comment. Perhaps a confusion of impedance (in this case, electrical impedance) with speech impediment? Other than that, I haven’t a clue. —Travis^talk 00:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This looks like someone using Wikipedia as a message board - they're asking for help with wiring up speakers. The other half of the conversation is at NIRVANA2764's talk page; probably, User:NIRVANA2764 and User:Milkbreath should be warned about this behavior. M1rth (talk) 00:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Additional - it doesn't help to be dismissive of people who write in with a concern. That's not exactly WP:CIVIL. Thanks. M1rth (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Nevermind about warning, I think I see the issue - if you're looking at the small section and URL it's easy enough to think you're looking at talk:Thomas Edison rather than User:Edison's talk page. I guess this does qualify as "message board" talk but I take back my earlier idea that it warranted a warning, just two wikipedians sharing information. Someone can probably mark this case closed. M1rth (talk) 00:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not message boarding, just a spillover of the reference desks onto someone's talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I copied your note over to the user's talk page. Glad this one is solved. M1rth (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Ahh, well that explains it. The original comment didn’t leave me much to go on. Thanks —Travis^talk 00:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at Maddox

I don't quite understand what we're fighting about, but there's loads of incivility, sockpuppetry, lack of communication and general anti-constructiveness. --Saber^Excalibur! 22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

NPA warning left with Servant Saber (talk · contribs). Who knows what's going on there, seems to be a couple of contributors fighting over who's going to fix the article the best... —αlεx•mullεr 23:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not what is going on. I did say that but I was kidding. User:Panelgets is edit warring and vandalising the page by reverting to an older version which is worse and has warning templates. I fixed it now. Panelgets is being disruptive. Saber has only protected the page. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Socks all over the place

I would like the edits of the obvious puppetry gang Panelgets, Arisedrink, Peapee and Amazing cow to be taken into consideration. --Saber^Excalibur! 00:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Might want to take a quick look at this [89].I must say, its borderline. Tiptoety ^talk 01:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's your basic troll. — Edokter • Talk • 01:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say an advance Troll. Igor Berger (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked this IP for 24 hours to prevent further angst. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We're being used as a chalkboard for a professor in Australia, apparently - am I wrong to be cranky?

Resolved

 – deleted and SALTed, Tiptoety ^talk 03:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Talk:Agim Cura. User:Agim cura says he's a professor, and he's put this non-notable information on Wikipedia for his students to find, so please don't remove it. His edits to chronology for July 4 were reverted, in a very admirable assumption of good faith. Anybody want to haul out the cluebat?--Orange Mike | Talk 02:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Recreated again after the final warning. I've tagged for a speedy, can we get the user blocked and/or the page salted? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, my bad. Given final warning, page tagged for speedy. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone still needs to SALT though. Tiptoety ^talk 02:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, with two deletions today. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Deleted and salted. I notified the user of this topic... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Scott Brown?

Resolved

I am curious, ip claims to be some one named Scott Brown and being a prolific vandal in his random rants example of. I am just curious if anyone has even heard of him? By the way I think that is an admitted sockpuppet. I didn't read through it all but it seems to be what is being said. Rgoodermote  03:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind the cat has come back to life. Rgoodermote  03:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears you're correct. He was originally User:MrPhillyTV User:Spotteddogsdotorg. He's blocked now. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 03:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Funny nobody even had to answer this and I got my answer, well I am going to mark this as resolved because the IP was marked before an answer came to this thread. Rgoodermote  03:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:71.156.32.232

Resolved

 – user blocked

71.156.32.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - please block this vandal and protect their Talk page. Corvus cornix_talk 04:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

block IP for linkspam: 75.85.30.124

This IP has been adding the same URL to several different pages. Can someone block him? [90] Tedder (talk) 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Every edit from this IP is either adding an inappropriate link or a test edit, but it's very slow motion and the talk page has only two warnings. I have left a final warning. Bovlb (talk) 06:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Independent Admin Review Requested

Resolved

 – nlocked the IP for 3RR--Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've come up with a problem on Eleanor Roosevelt. An IP removed a category without explaining, which I reverted and warned appropriately. They then removed it again. I researched the LGBT discussion about the category and posted a handwritten note on the talk page. They then posted a note to mine saying that my reverts were vandalism and I would be blocked. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Took care of it. I blocked the IP for edit warring on the article. They were warned, and refused to take it to the talk page. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

After blanking the block notice and replacing it with a trolling response, which was reverted by Jayron32, and done again, reverted by myself, I've semi-protected the talk page for 24 hours. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

EliasAlucard still posting anti-Semitic rants on Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Blocks have been endorsed by a consensus of admins Avruch ^T 17:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Block 'em both. Nandesuka (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite a warning, EliasAlucard continues to post anti-Semitic rants on Wikipedia:

• In the talk page of a biography of Kevin Macdonald, he out of the blue refers to the Holocaust as the "Holohoax" [91]
• anti-Semitic and belligerent edit summary here By the way, it's an invalid source that he keeps insisting on putting in, apparently thinking anti-semitic rants are a substitute for WP:RS.

When can this hateful editor be blocked? Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for 72 hours; if he persists after that, I think an indefinite block is in order. Wikipedia is no place for such bile. — Coren ^(talk) 05:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I don't think this was a good block. Bloodlesthecat has been basically attacking him non-stop for quite some time now, and I'm pretty sure he's misrepresenting what's been said here. Look at the first one:

• [92]; he's discussing the second one in the context of the views of Kevin MacDonald, which include the view that the Holocaust is used as a political tool by "Zionist" to great effect; one should not be surprised to note that these same views form part of Holocaust denial or the "Holohoax" argument.
• [93] The second quote is similar. Kevin MacDonald (and, indeed, many other individuals) view Israel "birthright" citizenship based on race/genetics as hypocritical; that is what the source in question discusses and I fail to see how it is an "anti-Semitic" or "belligerent" edit summary

This looks like a bit of a hit-job, designed to get him blocked for disagreeing. --Haemo (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, even though it has become obvious that both users have issues the information posted on WP:WQA seems quite troubling, the user was warned and he was aware that the alert's resolution concluded that he should be blocked if the pattern continued. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Then how do you explain that "Holohoax" was apparently used as a quotation of the subject of the article (Kevin MacDonald) and not by the user. This "evidence" does not show what is being claimed. Why is that? David D. (Talk) 06:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the thread in WQA, apparently this user has a tendency to make the comments in a manner that might hide some of its bias, but some are rather obvious attacks. The point is that he was warned and continued pushing the issue. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen enough to form an opinion yet, but this edit is problematic, even AGFing on the "holohoax" thing. --B (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok ... after continuing to go back over edits and seeing this edit, I've seen enough now. I endorse the block. --B (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and Jossi talked to him about avoiding inserting his own political opinions (questionable though they may be) into discussions on his talk page, and how to avoid it. Frankly, I think he's put up with quite a bit so far, being called at literally every turn names like "anti-Semite", "hate-monger", "racist", etc. --Haemo (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Haemo, here is another compilation of this editor's vile anti-Semitic rants and personal attacks. Your insinuation that my challenging this vicious, racist bile ia a "hit job," and your odd rationalization for this user to call the Holocaust the Holohoax is very, very offensive. Haemo, be so kind as to AGF and likewise desist from your insulting insinuations and apologetics for anti-Semitic rants and Jew baiting personal attacks on wikipedia and against its editors. thanks! Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm, I do love being called an "insulting" apologist for "anti-Semitic rants" and "Jew-baiting". --Haemo (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And I do love insinuations that my protesting Jew baiting abuse and anti-Semtic rants is a "hit job" that I concocted. Just another whiny Jew, eh? Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for the term "hit job", but I still don't think your links support your claims. And the "whiny Jews" in my ancestry are spinning in their graves. --Haemo (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat, you need to calm down. Your "holohoax" link was less than convincing. On the other hand B's links were quite revealing. David D. (Talk) 06:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hows that, David D? The "Holohoax" comment was entirely Alucard's gratuitous use--has nothing to do with anything in the article. Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, as someone who has no clue about the history it looks like he is quoting, or paraphrasing, McDonald. David D. (Talk) 06:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

trust me, he's not. Macdonald never uses phrases remotely like "holohoax." He's a bit more sophisticated and not about to get himself fired from his college (although he's halfway there). Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

All you had to do was post more examples, which should not have been too hard given "he posts volumes of anti-Semitic rants on Wikipedia talk pages". The one you chose to present was not as obvious as you thought. Don't shoot the messenger. David D. (Talk) 07:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I hear you--this is actually the 3rd time I've filed a complaint about this user--I should have referenced all the previous examples. The two I cited were examples of what he posted after being strongly warned. Boodlesthecat (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• We have to be careful with this. We cannot block people for not liking or disagreeing with someone's political or religious views. Igor Berger (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  This is my opinion here. EliasAlucard has some opinions which most people (myself included) find distasteful. This was brought up to him, and he was warned about it. Since then, he has not made any more comments of the type he was warned against — he has, however, commented on some sourcing for an individual who has similar views. In doing so, he has apparently brought down wrath since his discussion of the sources includes similar opinions. What are we blocking him for again? Because if it's continuing to "rant" after being warned, this doesn't cut it. If it's for his opinions, then there's precedent — but then why the warning in the first place? --Haemo (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Haemo here. This isn't clear anti-Semitism. The Holohoax thing could very well have been misconstrued at first glance. The second comment that B used to endorse the block also doesn't prove anything. Even if it were that he was anti-Semitic (when rather I believe he is anti-Zionist) I don't see why he should be blocked for it. What matters is whether or not he is violating WP:SOAP or WP:POINT and being disruptive. I'm not seeing that here - I'm seeing accusations being thrown around left and right from both sides that need to stop. --Veritas (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's just not become Crusaders. Igor Berger (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is precedent in cases where the user posting ethnic based attacks was warned and continued to use the talk pages to soapbox, what happened? Jimbo himself banned him, this case isn't that extreme but a short block might prevent that it becomes. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AGF only goes so far. I am often told that I have a poor imagination, but I have a hard time imagining someone who participates at stormfront being a serious contributor here. That place turns my stomach and we have blocked people for linking to trash there before. Disagreeing with someone is one thing. Obviously, most of us have a worldview of some sort and disagree with anything contrary to that worldview - that's the law of non-contradiction. But the comments I have seen from this user convince me that he is here to push a racist agenda. --B (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've documented his anti-semitic ranting at length. How can you misconstrue someone using the phrase holohoax out of nowhere? He rants endlessly about JEWS--how is this "anti-Zionism? The logic that he is just presenting his "views" would make a mockery of NPA--I can tell anyone to eff thmselves, because that's my "personal opinion".

But SERIOUSLY--why do some people seem to cut soooo much slack for vicous racists when the targets are Jews? Enquiring minds want to know. Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments here have crossed the line from helpful to unhelpful. Please stop. --B (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, speaking AS a jew, I love it best when people are free to shoot of their mouths, and by opening, prove they're the idiots we suspected them to be, to paraphrase an old adage. (Speaking in general terms about free speech, not taking potshots as EA.) So long as they're just spouting bullshit, let them prove they're idiots. If it hurts the project, or could be liberally interpreted as incitement (or other legal crimes), then I'm all for community bans or calls to the police. Otherwise, free speech means distasteful speech too. (And remember, the sooner a Jew hears organized Nazism gaining a toe-hold in society, the sooner they can loudly protest, and move out of the area.) ThuranX (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So WP:TALK is meaningless, and we should allow racists to rant all over Talk Pages? Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we here to defend a group of people or to defend knowledge! We are here to promote NPOV not to take sides of history. Igor Berger (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point here, this user is repeating a pattern of ethnic-based soapboxing, a pattern that has led to at least one user being banned, and he is doing so knowing that it will inflame the situation further. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that Blood is not innocent here as he doesn't help to deescalate the situation. --Veritas (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the point that Blood makes apparent by his reaction is that certain comments can be disruptive to the project due to their divisiveness. I think that mediation is called for here in which EA agrees not to discuss personal opinions on ethnic groups. --Veritas (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to why anti-Semitic rants are described as "personal opinions." Are Jews fair game for rants, without censure, in the name of "free speech"? Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree - if he wants to discuss his personal opinions on ethnic groups, there are plenty of outlets for him to do so - Wikipedia is not among them. A topic ban would be my first choice. --B (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If those opinions are relevent to the article and can be referenced with notability he would have a right to quote them, but if they are targeting an editor on a talk page than he has not right to be abusive. Igor Berger (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a message board. I can't imagine any serious encyclopedia having an editor on race topics who holds views that could only be described as racism. If he participates in stormfront and agrees with their views on life, I probably have a poor imagination, but I can't imagine him being a serious contributor here in that topic area. --B (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's been established that he actually agrees with stormfront. --Veritas (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What does it matter--he posts volumes of anti-Semitic rants on Wikipedia talk pages. Is that or is that not unacceptable? Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Very true, he would have to walk a fine line if he is serious about contributing. Igor Berger (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to bed - On that note, I support a topic ban, temporary or indefinite. --Veritas (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not having looked into this user, her's what I have to say... Per WP:NPA there is no justification for preventing him/her from editing articles just because his/her views are disgusting. If his/her edits to a particular set of articles are continually unhelpful then there may be justification for a topic ban, but not just because of his/her views. Indeed, dismissing someone because of their views is a violation of NPA. If he/she disrupts talk pages by continually posting OT diatrabes or quotes then there is probably justification for a block after an inappropriate warning. Even more so if those OT comments are likely to be offensive and it doesn't matter whether the target is Jewish people, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Arabs, Africans, African Americans, Asians, Americans, Europeans, women, men, homosexuals, heterosexuals ... And I've seen a lot of disgusting irrelevant comments on talk pages, Jewish people are by no means the only target or even the most common target from what I've seen Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice, Boodles, who I'm sure isstill rading, if not editing: As I said above, let a person open their mouth enough and they prove other folks' suspicions. EliasAlucard's long list of offenses at the WQA shows the problems. had we tried to block him immediately, there would've been lots of argument that it was a one-off affair or some such. Instead, let him dig that hole big, deep and dark, and then hes' stuck in it. that's why I don't mind letting any fool run at the mouth long. In such cases, be the pig in the argument. (you know that adage about arguing with a pig? 'Never argue with a pig. You're not gonna win and the pig doesn't care anyways'?) that's why some people think it's better to NOT overreact. Hope this helps you understand it. (And it's not that I thoroughly ignore such stuff, but instead, just wait, watch, and never forget - Old German truism "We get too soon old, and too late smart") another case of being worth the learning. ThuranX (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you read, Boodles? This is getting ridiculous. I told you in no uncertain terms to shut up and take the dispute off the wiki about 30 hours ago. Since then, you've been attacking and forum shopping on countless talk and user talk pages to get him blocked, using WP:TALK and Elias' political viewpoints as defence. This is getting tedious. Stop it. Will ^(talk) 09:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you read, Sceptre (Will)? a quick perusal of your talk page shows that at least three editors told you that your "Shut the hell up" response to Boodles was way out of line. Let this be the fourth. I think this edit of yours more than warrants some admin attention. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And just as many thought it was an adequate response. Will ^(talk) 12:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, though it was relatively restrained, given Boodles's troublemaking and self-control problems. Sometimes you need a two-by-four to get someone's attention. --Calton | Talk 13:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Coren

(e/c) (undent) For what it's worth, given the fuss, I've spend some time walking backwards in EliasAlucard's contribs to see if I had been too heavy handed. What I see is a long time pattern of offensive racism of varying subtlety, and such a pattern is highly undesirable— even if we presume those are beliefs held sincerely, they were nonetheless presented to offend or bait reactions. I stand by my block. — Coren ^(talk) 13:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Boodles may or may not end up getting blocked as well if he doesn't leave the soapboxing and ranting to other sites, but Elias's block was appropriate. Neıl ☎ 13:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Coren's block, and future actions in this same vein if disruptive behavior from EliasAlucard continues. There are standards here, even for personal opinions, and relentless disparaging attacks against an ethnicity (rather than, say, a policy of a particular government) have no place. Having said that, if Boodlesthecat can't keep a lid on his reactions then he may find himself in a similar situation. Avruch ^T 15:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse per the three above. We're supposed to have a welcoming environment here, and hostility toward any ethnic group is inimical to that. At the same time Boodles needs to learn when enough is enough. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

with all due respect, I'm at this point more than confused and disturbed that I am repeatedly threatened with being blocked for the crime of reporting the incessant racist rants and anti-Semitic personal attacks of another editor. I am equally confused and disturbed at accusations of "soapboxing" "forum shopping" and the are leveled at me, especially since my valid (and subsequently confirmed) complaint about anti-Semitic ranting was met with a response of "Shut the hell up" by a sorta maybe admin who shut the case. and I am as well confused and disturbed by the insinuations that I am somehow stampeding on this rabid anti-Semite's "free speech" by filing this complaint. The first, bold faced instruction on WP:TALK is that talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Does this somehow not apply if those personal views are anti-Semitic, Jew bashing racist personal attacks? Is that an exception to WP:TALK? I am simply not getting it here, and I am tired of the threats I am receiving, as well as the open season style nasty attacks by other editors and admins who don't even bother to read the case I've compiled. Please explain. Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You two have done nothing but bait each other and disrupted Wiki and dragged most of AN/I into your personal feud. Your comments have been mostly unhelpful and nothing less than inflammatory. You have accused established editors of Neo-Nazi sympathy and been largely uncivil. Not to mention your constant messages on people's talk pages about their comments on this discussion rather than engaging them here - not like your messages were even relevant anyway to the discussion of whether or not EA is disruptive. --Veritas (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

BoodlesTheCat blocked by Nandesuka

I have blocked BoodlesTheCat for 24 hours continuing to insinuate that the admins and editors discussing this issue at AN/I are challenging him out of some latent or patent antisemitism, even after being asked, by multiple parties, to stop. I have left the block of EliasAlucard in place. Nandesuka (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Going over the top in the way he did is right out of line. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Huzzah. --Veritas (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oy ve - It sounds like someone in this discussion is trying to do their best to portray (and maintain) a certain Jewish stereotype... they're doing a bang up job at it too! --WebHamster 16:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a squabble based on off-Wiki activity, and I suggest when Boodles and Elias's blocks expire, they stay out of each other's way on-Wiki, as any further antagonism or baiting from Boodles, or anti-Semitism from Elias, and further, longer blocks would be necessary. Support 24h block for BoodlesTheCat, he was warned. I don't understand WebHamster's comment; it seems like he's suggesting Boodles is a stereotypical Jewish editor, but I'm sure it isn't - perhaps he could explain it? Neıl ☎ 16:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: "Jewish stereotype" not "stereotypical Jewish editor". No mention of "editor" in my comment. Likewise please note the inclusion of "portray" as opposed to "is an". --WebHamster 16:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting an extension of Boodles' ban. It took him ten edits after his block ended to come right back here and push the issue more. He can't let it go, and I really think he needs another block to get that we don't need him agitating more here right after he gets back (see the indef block section below.ThuranX (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with ThuranX, it seems every time someone tells Boodles to take it easy, he goes crazy and shouts "zomg secret nazi". JuJube (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

EliasAlucard indef blocked by Will Beback

Based on comments here, on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#anti-Semitic rants by EliasAlucard, on the user's talk page, as well as the user's long block record, I've extended EliasAlucard's block duration to indefinite. If any admin thinks that's excesive I'd be willing to talk. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly endorse this block (though I'm not an admin). Unrepentant Holocaust deniers and anti-semites are one step above pedophiles. Bellwether ^B_C 01:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not actually a reason to block someone. The disruption that normally comes with it is. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 02:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • If acknowledged pedophiles are blocked, then so should acknowledged Holocaust-deniers. Bellwether ^B_C 02:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Sam is correct. We don't block people for being pedophiles. We do block people when they push a POV in a disruptive, aggressive manner, or are uncivil towards those who don't share their POV. That was the case here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Just to make it clear, I believe that the mere act of self-identification as a paedophile is disruptive. While I find anti-Semitism and Holocaust-denial revolting, self-alignment with this kind of thought is not per se disruptive in the same way. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 08:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse I was alarmed that the block was only 72 hours. This user is not worth the grief, nor the potential loss of editors who could not work with an editor who was unpunished or lightly punished for horrific behavior. IronDuke 02:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse; in view of the venom expressed in the unblock requests. In fact, I've blanked an pp'ed the talk page as it was used to spew further racist rants about the "zionized" administrators. — Coren ^(talk) 02:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse this block as per the above. Anti-Semistic and holocaust rants as well as personal attacks are not acceptable here on Wikipedia. Greg Jones II 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I as Jewish person having my father lose all his 7 siblings and his mother in Auschwitz oppose this indef block because we are being vindictive because the person does not agree with our views. He has not been disruptive and has not personal attacked an editor but stated his point of view on the talk pages. While Wikipedia is not the place to promote one’s point of view this does not justify an indef block to an editor who has been editing for a number of years. This should go to ArbCom at a least and if anything he should get a community ban of 30 days at the most but not an indef block. Also the provocateurs are just to blame of incivility as much as he is. Igor Berger (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  If permited I would like to submit an email that I received from EliasAlucard that will show that he is not a racisit and he cares about our community. Please let me know and I can post it here or forward it to an admin. I personally do not know him and just met him on this post and offer my defence for him just because of WP:NPOV. Igor Berger (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse In my opinion, this is not as much about anti-Semitism (even though I agree that his anti-Semitic remarks -- especially those in his unblock requests -- deserve a block on their own), but about an editor who has a tendency to attack other editors personally, and to talk about and to other editors in a condescending way, and has continued to do so after numerous warnings and blocks. Be it on the topic of neo-Nazism, anti-Semitism, or the Syriac people, this user has been uncivil incessantly. Also it should be noted that the user has been blocked indefinitely from the Swedish Wikipedia, for pretty much the same reasons. Personally, I believe anti-Semitic ideology in itself should not be a reason to block someone, lack of civility and a tendency not to comply with WP guidelines however is. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 10:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Again, it seems that he has been blocked for expressing a POV on a talk page rater than being "disruptive" (hardly more disruptive than many unblocked editors, and he more than makes up for it with positive edits), which is unfortunate. I say block him for 72 hours, and see what happens afterwards. He was already told that it was his final warning, so let it be so. Funkynusayri (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." - see WP:TALK. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Blocking both was clearly appropriate, but I am not convinced that indefinite blocking is necessary for EliasAlucard, for all that his POV is unappreciated by most of us, and his actions to support that POV have undoubtedly crossed the line in this case. He is right that he has created and worked on a number of decent articles. I'd suggest this might be an appropriate candidate for probation. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I respect your opinion and would support any strong editor who is willing to take a menoring position with his editor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse this block as well - if Wikipedia is considered unreliable by someone who believes the Holocaust is a fraud, then so be it and I can't say it doesn't make me happy. (Previous edit was crossposting endorse comment from talkpage directed at EliasAlucard). Elias has demonstrated, in depth, that he holds opinions which are incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia and the principle of collaborative editing. Based on this, I support the indef block. Avruch ^T 17:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I haven't looked at this in depth, but it seems he has been editing since 2004. Had he just avoided behaving like this previously? Does this behaviour cast doubt on his previous edits? I note Guy said that he has created and worked on a number of decent articles. Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  I've deactivated the category on the indefblock, as even if the block sticks there is no need to have lots of signature links turn red. This is not a throwaway account, but one with history. Carcharoth (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: A month ago, I started a thread here regarding this editor's edits to AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse based on his charming comments such as "in time, this Holocaust disease will disappear from peoples minds", "People are eventually going to realise and wake up that much of the so called Holocaust is a complete fraud", and "These are all pathetic Judaized admins". [94] We can do without that sort of racist nonsense, thanks, and trying to defend it in a cloak of "free speech" is enablement. Neıl ☎ 21:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Here's an an example of an article he started, where he accuses a Jewish author of "promoting miscegenation" (a phrase usually used by Nazis, segregationists and KKK-type racists.) Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Perhaps if it didn't appear as though half the people invoved weren't wringing their hands and snickering in glee with this ban, I might change my mind, but this looks like outright vindictiveness: 'We don't like your opinion, so fuck off.' HalfShadow (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: I know the user on a personal level, and I am pretty sure he is not Anti-Semetic (is ironic calling him that since he himself is Semetic.) I think what he said was clearly wrong and does deserve punishment. But a ban I think is too much. Give him a long vacation to think about what he said, but he would be too big of a loss for Wikipedia:WikiProject Assyria, since he has carried the project on his back. I urge people to please take a look at his hard work before voting. His opinions on talkpages have bothered me previously as well, but it his opinion never gets in the way of his work (ie he makes sure things are neutral, etc.) His comments here [[95]] explains what I mean. An example of his work;Bahira. The guy's intentions are good, but he goes off on talk pages sometimes. He needs to learn to stop that, and perhaps a long suspension is a good thing for him, but just don't completely ban the guy. Chaldean (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - while I can't comment on Elias' actions pre-dispute, I find it hard to believe you've blocked the person who was at least trying to restrain himself in this dispute. Block the guy who's using his viewpoints as a platform for attacking him, and we'll talk. Will ^(talk) 00:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Neil, again, freedom of speech is important on Wikipedia talk pages, and even in articles Wikipedia includes content which offends millions (pictures in Muhammad article, so on), and no one has been indefinitely blocked for denying the Armenian or Assyrian genocides on talk pages either, which happens frequently. So unless it is actual Wikipedia policy to ban people who deny certain genocides and offend people through their POV, Elias shouldn't be banned. An indef block of Elias is a blow to Wikipedia's neutrality, more so than it would be if he wasn't blocked. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Commment: and no one has been indefinitely blocked for denying the Armenian or Assyrian genocides on talk pages either - Case in point [[96]]. If your going to ban him, ban everyone that denies the Assyrian genocide. Chaldean (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I endorse the block for two reasons. First, editors who promote ethnic or misogynist hatred can only serve to be divisive. Secondly, someone who truly believes there's insufficient evidence to show that the Holocaust occurred more or less as mainstream historians say it did, and who feels compelled to call it the "Holohoax," is unlikely to be of much use to an encyclopedia project. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse While I respect his rights to have his beliefs and opinions, I believe this editor has proven that he cannot do so in a non-disruptive manner. However, I strongly urge a similar block be given to boodles since he also seems to be a hostile disruptive editor continuously baiting others and forum shopping. --Veritas (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'd endorse this only if Boodles gets the same treatment. Having someone accusing everyone "against" him of being secret Zionists/Nazis is not productive at all. JuJube (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Huh? That made a lot of sense. Boodlesthecat (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: While I do not approve of EliasAlucard's views or edits in question, he has also made some positive contributions to Assyria-related topics, so perhaps he should be given a second chance. --07fan (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment EliasAlucard has made a number of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim comments too (see here for example.) Strange that his ire extends to all Semites. Strange too, that he's only blocked after supposedly questioning the Holocaust. I guess anti-Arab/anti-Muslim rhetoric is A-OK, eh? Tiamut^talk 02:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Exactly, it doesn't seem to be policy to block people indefinitely for questioning other genocides, or for being critical of for example Muslims. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. His many comments go beyond the pale. Tiamut's and Funkynusayri's comments confuse me; they indicate all the moreso that the banning is justified. The fact that those who do not edit the same articles as Tiamut might not have noticed his anti-Arab or anti-Muslim comments is unsurprising, and does not seem to justify Tiamut's bad faith question. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've stated before, I do not think having certain POVs should be bannable offenses, whatever group they might be directed against, and I've already pointed out that it doesn't seem to be policy. Funkynusayri (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

However, the issue isn't with "having certain POVs", but rather, as has been clearly explained by any number of people, with inappropriate behavior - which is against policy. Can I assume you will therefore now endorse the ban? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose indef. Wikipedia ought to be upholding the general principle of freedom of speech, and block not for having reprehensible views, but for disruption. And he has been disruptive here, yes, so a finite block and probation is what's called for now, not an immediate reach for the banhammer. --Calton | Talk 03:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, Calton, I'd agree if we could fill that position. Let's say that "indef" means pending a strong editor to enforce a probation. Who's that person? Probation requires enorcement, we've learned that much. In this case, several admins have had to block this user again and again. We've gone from reeated blows of the blockhammer to using the banhammer. If you've got a more effective tool then please use it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe the user and actually both of them can use mentors. I have been going to Durova and Jehochman since I joined Wikipedia and that helped me a lot to adjust and learn about Wikipedia community. We all need guidance and a friend to turn to when something is bothering us. This way the two can avoid the cat and dog type of fights. Igor Berger (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose indef but support a one month block. Blocks are supposed to be corrective. Give the account a chance to correct the behavior. While you're at it, give Boodlesthecat a two week block for baiting Elias. Cla68 (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Exactly! It was i that made him spew hatred across Wikipedia for the past year, right down to his lambasting all you Judacicized "pathetic intolerant dipshits"--because i guess I have those magic Jew mind control powers! Boodlesthecat (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I have blocked Boodlesthecat for 48 hours for this comment, coming as it does on the heels of a 24 hour block for the exact same sort of innuendo and character assassination. I have informed him that I will consider an unblock if he apologizes to Cla68. Nandesuka (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Uncertain I need to get sleep, and this isn't time critical. Someone ping me if I'm not back here with an opinion in 48 hours (assuming this remains with an indefinite block.) GRBerry 05:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: You know, I only wrote what I wrote based on what Elias has said wrong. But now I'm starting to read some of User:Boodlesthecat provocative comments. I think this was just a bad battle between 2 guys that went to the extreme. Banning one or both, just doesn't seem right. Teach these guys a lesson, and emphisize to them that talkpages are NOT forums. I appeal to all again to please just take a look at some of his work. He is professional when it comes to Wiki pages, but just very opinionated on talkpages. Its obvious why they are at each others throat, and I will make it more clear now; in my time on Wiki (and forum sites), it is not the first time for me to see this Jewish-Assyrian youth battles. This new generation are perpously at each others throats, with Assyrian youths thinking Israel is reason from blocking independence, while some Jewish youths are still bitter about the past (backround of the story one two). I think it would be a great punishment for the two to force them to create something like this. Just a thought. Chaldean (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  I agree! What message are we sending to Israeli and Palestinian kids if we are to take one side over another? We need to be open minded and help bridge the two cultures back together and not isolate them through walls and barriers. Hatred creats more hatred and creates wars in real world. Wikipedia should help stop that hatred and give people a chance to come together and learn from each other. Blocks are ment to be preventive not punitive. I trully believe we need to help all sides with this and not slam the doors shot on these people and editors. Igor Berger (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse I've been aware of Elias Alucard as a tendentious editor for a long time (on various topics, not just Jewish ones) and he has acquired an extensive block log to prove it. He would have been banned sooner or later anyway so I don't see why we shouldn't do it now. I think the encyclopaedia will benefit. --Folantin (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Not that I think adding the word string will treble my opinion count. But it does reflect my opinion of Elias, who has tirelessly contributed to numerous wikipedia articles. I won't let my friendship with him affect my professional opinion, so I agree that he should be "punished" - but into doing what? Thats just the thing, whatever punishment you wish to impose on Elias, he has already taken up that burden in his professional editting of wikipedia, which has been unfortunately tainted from time to time with strong opinions. Tourskin (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - I agree with Slim's assessment that anyone with such a loose grasp on historical facts is pretty much a lost cause; and if his bigotry extends to any other group, this only strengthens the case against him. --Leifern (talk) 03:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Indef is way too draconian for this. Holding a particular POV, no matter how distasteful some may find it, is not in itself disruptive. Tarc (talk) 03:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse I am temporarily interrupting a long wikibreak to respond here. I highly have a problem with (and am opposed to) racist/antisemitic editors, and think they need to be banned for the betterment of the community. I had no idea of this users antisemitism, and would have opposed this block any time, until I read through the diffs, which show clear antisemitism, violations of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and certainly justify a block. It also seems somebody may be canvassing for Elias, as all Elias' friends showed up here, as well as many of the editors who hold anti-Zionist views. Yahel Guhan 03:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  Are we supposed to believe that you interrupted your long wikibreak without being canvassed yourself? I don't find that at all credible. GRBerry 03:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• ^ Thanks for the bad faith. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What more do I have to say? [97] Yahel Guhan 03:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have to say what that has to do with this. If I reply to his talk page, I can see that he is blocked, so of course I investigate it further. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse per evidence at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#anti-Semitic_rants_by_EliasAlucard ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Could anyone explain to me why it isn't policy to ban people denying the Armenian and Assyrian genocides, which happens frequently on those talk-pages, while denial of the Jewish genocide is a bannable offense? Funkynusayri (talk) 04:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I can explain it. Read his talk page before it got blanked. An intemperate rant in which he calls editors dipshits and suggests they have "Judaized?" My God, he didn't even bother to fake an apology for his actions. And still there are people supporting him. I honestly wonder if all the "Endorsers" have seen the entire record of this user's appalling behavior. I find myself hoping they've not taken the time, which is sad in its own way. IronDuke 05:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're not answering my question. As for his record, I'd say the good outweighs the bad. But that's not the sole reason why I'm "supporting" him, I do not think people should be banned for their POV, whatever it is. Funkynusayri (talk) 05:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse based on what I see at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#anti-Semitic_rants_by_EliasAlucard. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, his comments on AFD convinced me that he lacks maturity but this comment 01:59, 27 February 2008 from just 2 days ago -- "Well what do you expect, Funky? These are all pathetic Judaized admins. They have no honour anyway and the sad part is that they think they're the good guys. By the way funky, I highly recommend you to read the Holocaust Industry. Don't worry though, in time, this Holocaust disease will disappear from peoples minds." -- , convinced me to support. I can't see editors with such inherent mal-intent becoming a contributive factor in the project. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• This demonstrates very clearly that "Funky" above knew well just how vile this user's POV and racism were before he contributed here. Bellwether ^B_C 12:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Which no one denies, remember? I've already explained that I agree with a long block, just not an indefinite one. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Talk pages are to discuss improvements of articles. We cannot let them be hijacked by people who persistently want to use them to publish their own editorials; it is aa consistent pattern of disruptive editing to make a point. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  We all have opinions and our own point of view. Even if we are a straight forward conservatist and a fundamentalist that is a POV as well. It is imposible to keep sterile as much as we aspire to WP:NPOV. Igor Berger (talk) 11:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Not all ignorant opinions are created equally vile. And not all people who hold these opinions choose to spew their hatred all over the project. Bellwether ^B_C 12:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• endorse net contribution to wikipedia is in the negative. Gzuckier (talk) 18:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.