Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive233

Spontaneous block of DreamGuy by David Gerard, please review

On April 15, 216.165.158.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for a month for POV-pushing by Theresa Knott, which I thought rather draconian, and reduced to one week. ANI discussion here. This is the IP of DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as he has amply acknowledged. It's not an abusive sock. My week's block was about to run out today, when David Gerard re-blocked for a month, giving the reason that the IP is "a sock of a banned user" (? no), and that it has been making ""Continuing personal attacks using talk page as platform". (I agree DreamGuy has been surly on the talkpage; blocked users tend to be.) David has also blanked and semiprotected the talkpage. So, a one-month block plus the talkpage gag? Was this guy making personal attacks to the extent that it disrupted the encyclopedia? On his own talkpage, that nobody has any need to go to and be disrupted by...? Well, I think that would be an overstatement, please check the History and see if you agree. Theresa, prompted by DreamGuy's old adversary Elonka, has subsequently blocked the DreamGuy account for a month also. The DreamGuy block actually seems merely redundant, as a comparison of the IP block periods with DreamGuy's contributions will show that DreamGuy is blocked when his IP is. But perhaps, if Theresa's double block hadn't been placed, he could have used User talk:DreamGuy to communicate, say post an unblock request? Not sure if that would have been technically possible. It's moot now, anyway.

David's block seems excessively spontaneous to me. I'm hoping he will reconsider it. A hurried proceeding is suggested by the way he placed it last thing before going offline, apparently — I have posted on his page without response, and his contributions list ends with the 216.165.158.7 semiprotection — and also without a block message and without any report here.

Please note that DreamGuy, while not our sweetest-tempered user, is a constructive editor and certainly no vandal. As I wrote in the original ANI thread a week ago, he has done good work for the encyclopedia for a long time, in staunchly resisting spam, nonsense, conspiracy theories, and pseudoscience. A silent phasing-out of this useful contributor by means of longer and longer blocks is quite wrong in my book. Take him to WP:RFAr if measures are needed. Or perhaps a mentor? Anyway, this is no way of doing it. That's what I think, what do you think? Please review. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

You know, DreamGuy may have his share of positive contributions, but so do most people who get blocked. From what I've seen, DG is obsessive about Elonka and actively tries to remove each and every mention of Elonka and her works from Wikipedia, taking the opportunity to spread incivility and bad will. Besides, I've always heard that RfAr (and our dependence on it) indicates that we're unable to solve our own problems.

DG should have no problem posting to his talk page, blocks or no blocks. If he expresses a willingness to discontinue his problematic editing patterns, he should be unblocked and monitored. What *isn't* productive is shrugging off these problems as "not being our sweetest-tempered editor". Philwelch 01:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but you are being overly naive regarding this case, Bishonen. Both the anon and DreamGuy are not productive editors, and their negative impact far outweights the positive ones. The Wikipedia isn't in such desperate need of editors that we have to take whatever comes... we can easily let go of editors who, despite having some postive contributions, are both agressive and disruptive. Not to mention completely impolite and confrontational. I don't know about other admins, but I am perfectly willing to move forwards with a community block or other such radical measure in case Gerard's decision is overturned. --Sn0wflake 02:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is actually nonsense. The only negatives come from conflicts with people who are not following policies and then try to win through false accusations and character assasination. You, for instance, were quite aggressive and disruptive and, as your talk page states, have a policy of blocking first no questions asked. This kind of behavior goes against the policies of Wikipedia and, in fact, causes more problems than it solves. If anything your own responsibility in this matter, first in harassing me until I said something less than polite in response and then in presenting false information to the ANI page about my activities, which led to a block under false pretenses, should be examined. It's might outrageous for you to be making claims about my edit history when the dispute I had with you was because you insisted upon placing information on how to pirate software back into an article talk page after I had removed it because it was not what talk pages are for. 216.165.158.7 23:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I was preserving the Talk page. If the discussion in it unfolded for two years without being censored, then I don't really see for what reason you would be allowed to go into it and erase basically everything. Still, trying to reach a middle-ground, I archived t and started a fresh Talk. Then, on the main article, you insisted on putting information which belonged to the article on Abandonware. I reverted and told you those matters should be addressed in Abandonware. You disagreed, so you insisted on pushing your bias into the article of the website. Then hell broke loose and your other conflicts surfaced. And here we are. You have now accused me several times of abusing my sysop rights, called me a software pirate several times also (warez lubber, wasn't it? Way to go with encyclopedia language) and your list of Contributions should be a textbook case on how not to behave on a Wiki. Now there seem to be 3 admins volunteering to mentor you and somehow you have been unblocked, which I find downright ridiculous, but I digress. My part in this seems to be over for the moment. --Sn0wflake 23:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

First up, however long illegal an completely off topic information may have existed on a talk page without being removed it certainly doesn't justify putting it back and then making very aggressive, rude and threatening comments about it. "Pulling information that belonged in the article"? Sounds like you had an edit disagreement. Edit disagreements are not cause for you to bully others. You kept putting your bias back in. But, again, you are ignoring that your stated policy to block first and ask questions later, which you certainly did (not to mention the later false info you presented on ANI) is wholly against the rules here and highly uncivil. The fact of the matter is, you were out of line. I admit to being less than polite sometimes, but on the other hand it usually comes from people being off the scale uncivil to me and violating policy (or, in your case, also the law). Blocking people without justification and bragging about it on your talk page is way more uncivil than me calling you a warezlubber (or whatever) after you had already clearly demonstrated a pro-piracy POV. The abandonware article (and related article giving free advertising to specific sites that do this) and other similar articles very clearly need to have information there so as not to confuse people into thinking that softwarepiracy is legal, either on its own or simply by giving it a fancy new neologism to rationalize it away. My edits simply pointed out that it is illegal, which is not a POV, and tried to undo some of the blatant pro-piracy POV that had been there. DreamGuy 00:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Never denied having a strong approach, never will. However, this is exactly the kind of thing which didn't need to happen, if only you had used a different tone back in the first edits/messages. I reacted strongly to somebody who was making his point strongly? Of course. Against policy? That's stretching a bit, no? You were being disruptive in several oportunities (I'm not even talking about myself anymore), and you are bounf to have realized that after all that has ensued. Also, what you describe as violating the law is very questionable. No direct link was being provided to downloads, AFAIK. There were just people pointing out how to reach the website. The site is online, not on some Freenet, but on the actual WWW, so really, giving a link to the website which is readily avalible from Google and a thousand other places is hardly violating any law. More like censorship, which I am very strongly against. Rather, you choose to assume bad faith and automatically turn me into a "pro-piracy warez lubber". I strive to mantain neutrality and block attempts at censorship. But saying I'm breaking the law etc makes it easier, no... if you hope me to hand out candy to people who unilaterally make changes to articles with agressive edit summaries and come to my Talk page loaded with guns instead of simply asking me what was going on, then no... I'm not that kind of admin and I never will be — my politeness depends on yours, admin or not. Also, about warning people about the legal status of abandonware... it doesn't belong on the websites' article. And that's it. It doesn't matter how evil you think it is. It belongs to Abandonware. --Sn0wflake 02:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, the IP block for being a "sock of a banned user" appears to be based on a factual error, in that DreamGuy was not blocked or banned and no one else has been identified whom 216 could be a sock of. The necessity for the block and its length should be reassessed, after taking this correction into account, by the blocking administrator, whose attention should be drawn to this thread if it has not already been. I do not see that at this point, a case for a continued block, let alone a block of one month, has been made out. Note that I have not reviewed all the contributions and I am not opining that a further block could not be justified, simply that it has not been thus far. Having said that, enough concerns have been raised about the user's editing under both the DreamGuy and IP accounts that it would be good to see improvements in his approach whenever he resumes editing. Newyorkbrad 03:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Philwelch: "DG should have no problem posting to his talk page, blocks or no blocks"? I guess you didn't notice my several references to the IP talkpage being semiprotected by David Gerard (confusingly, another DG) ? Semiprotection means an IP can't edit the page. That's why I also refer to it as "the talkpage gag". Thanks for giving me an opportunity to explain this perhaps little-known facet of semiprotection. A combined block-plus-semiprotection-of-Talk is the strongest way we have of locking up and silencing an editor. It's rare, as it's only appropriate in very extreme cases. I wish somebody would unprotect the page right now. I have probably performed enough admin actions in this context, so I won't do it. I have appealed to David to undo his protection himself, but he's not here. I'm disappointed nobody has thought appropriate to do it yet. Brad? Bishonen | talk 03:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

He doesn't need the IP talkpage. He can log in as DreamGuy and post on his own talk page. Philwelch 04:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

David is probably asleep. I don't see any problem with a cautious unblock here. Certainly David wouldn't object, he's not a nitwit. --Tony Sidaway 03:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Tony, did you mean unprotect, instead of unblock? David Gerard appears to have blanked and semi-protected the page, because DreamGuy was using it as a platform to generate personal attacks. However, it's true that Gerard didn't issue any kind of, "This is your last warning" message. So, if DreamGuy would agree to be civil, I'd say to go ahead and unprotect the page, as long as he behaves himself. The block, however, should stay regardless, as it's for personal attacks, of which there were plenty. I'd be against removing the block, until/unless DreamGuy could prove that he was willing to participate in a cooperative and civil fashion with other editors. --Elonka 04:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what Elonka here is calling "personal attacks" is simply my poiting out that her and the other person falsely accusing others of using sockpuppets have a long history of harassing me -- and in fact is why I normally don;t sign onto accounts (it's not required by Wikipedia) as several admins suggested it might be a way to lessen their unnatural preoccupation with me -- and also of having sockpuppets on Elonka's Request for Admin vote, as proven by comments of several editors at the time. Elonka has a long history of branding things which are 100% accurate but which show her to be less than perfect person she wants the world to think she is as "personal attacks" and running around admin-shopping until she gets someone who will remove the posts. (Philwelch, above, being the perfect example, who in the past removed all documentation about Elonka's misbehavior that I had posted but insisted that Elonka's claims about me remain... 216.165.158.7 23:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant the block. It is the block that Bishonen has asked us to review. If this user after unblocking continues to be a pain in the wiki, he can be blocked again. --Tony Sidaway 04:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unblock him.--MONGO 04:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've undone both blocks because DreamGuy isn't a banned user. Actually I feel that my original 1 month block wasn't OTT at all. He was behaving awfully and needs to be told firmly that if he cannot edit cooperativly with others then he cannot edit at all. Anyway, that is done now, and we cannot block people as banned when they are not.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The talk page was being used as a platform for vicious personal attacks - see its history. That's why I semiprotected it, specifcially so the IP couldn't continue in this manner. Bishonen, I hope you're not yet again offering undue protection to someone who makes good content but is given to vicious personal attacks on the wiki - David Gerard 09:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that statement there is a vicious personal attack, both on myself and the actions of admins trying to act within the policies. 216.165.158.7 23:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, David. That's rather disappointing as a thank-you note to me for sweeping up after your careless block late last night, when I would much rather have gone to bed. Please be more specific about my past and present undue actions, I'd like to know what they have been. Bishonen | talk 12:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

• I suppose the "someone" David Gerard is referring to above is me - though he is too timorous and polite to say it outright - or has he someone else in mind? - Whatever, perhaps we should be told - and more importantly how precisely Bishonen is "offering undue protection". If David Gerard does not want to put some diffs where his mouth is then he should shut up or cease his attacks - such as this one [1] on Bishonen and her integrity. Giano 12:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

David Gerrard's actions were outside of policy, and, honestly, so were Theresa's. If a person is being hateful, etc., we still have AN and AN/I. We still have warnings. Even if the person in question is notorious, etc., we have the same requirements. It takes a minute to do things the non-controversial way. "Personal attacks" are indefinable and are especially indefinable when we get to user talk pages. Talk pages are not article pages, and blocking someone without warning and then blanking and protecting the talk page because of self-identified "personal attacks" is not proper. Doing so and then going deaf to the appeals is only slightly worse. Geogre 13:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As a user who had to deal with both DreamGuy and 216.165.158.7, I must comment: I think that this user has been repeatedly warned and given chances to reform, if not by warning templates, manually - I do not contest the block(s) itself. I do agree, however, that no user deserves to be silenced as such, especially given DG/.7's claim that the IP shifts over time. Since the block is reasonably justified, can we leave it as that, a simple block, and unprotect applicable talk pages? Besides, DG is a good editor, if extremely uncivil. I'd recommend leaving this block stand, but a warning that future cases may lead to a WP:RFAr. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 13:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen, Geogre: if you think DreamGuy's work is of value and are this keen to stand up for it, I hope you'll both go to extra-special effort to get him to stop being abusive to others and to attempt to mitigate what damage he causes. If he can't work well with others - and his behaviour so far indicates he has no interest in such - then he should be writing GFDL text all on his own, not attempting to work on a site that requires massive collaboration - David Gerard 14:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember DreamGuy from a year or so back. I concur with the view that he's a well meaning and useful editor who has problems staying civil. If this has become a problem to the point where we must consider showing him the door, this wasn't the way to try to do it. Perhaps a user conduct RFC or discussion at the community sanction noticeboard would be an appropriate next step? Friday (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

First RFC, Second RFC. The habit of personal attack is not the behaviour of an unknowing n00b, and he's not getting better. Again, I strongly urge those admins who wish to defend him to work hardest on reining in his noted obnoxious behaviour - David Gerard 16:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So... are you then going to get a mentor to help you stay within Wikipedia policies when it comes to blocks and so forth...? Besides, if civility is the supposed issue, I think your comments (and the comments of many trying to portray me as some hopeless cause) are certainly just as bad. AGF and civility should apply to you folks as well. DreamGuy 00:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If two admins insist that this is such a good user, then I would suggest that they mentor him and clean up his mess from now on. Seems fair, as the work will not be left to people like me, Theresa and Gerard. --Sn0wflake 16:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is insisting anything. I don't mind cleaning up after him, I am an admin, it's what I do, it's what we all do. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• I sometimes wonder why some of you people are admins, admins are here to do what admins do - I rather think that involves mops and buckets; you have volunteered for the job, not been dragged kicking and screaming against your wills. I note David Gerard has neatly avoided my question above so I repeat it, this time more clearly - please explain the "yet again" in "I hope you're not yet again offering undue protection to someone who makes good content but is given to vicious personal attacks on the wiki" you made the attack on Bishonen's integrity - now support it with some diffs and facts! Giano 21:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard attacked nobody, please do not bait him. Bastique. 22:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe I gave precisely those diffs, and why you were only Bishonen's word away from a ban for gross incivility, during the last Arbitration case you were involved in. It is saddening that what I said then about you being unable to comport yourself decently on policy pages still appears to hold - David Gerard 22:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to have a highly inflated idea of your own importance on this site. Perhaps you should learn to review it, and stop baiting others with your comments which have no relevance to a situation. Giano 22:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that some actually click at some of the "precisely those diffs" as David Gerard puts it and finds in them "vicious personal attacks" as he claims them to be. --Irpen 22:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would not worry Irpen, David Gerard is just dredging up old "has been" events and diffs, all of which have been discussed "ad nauseum" to justify his attack on Bishonen's judgement. I had rather hoped he may have found something new but it seems he has just chosen to resurrect all the old animosity - and open old wounds to cause trouble, I wonder why? Some people never know when to leave a sleeping dog alone. Giano 22:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

David Gerrard: I ask you to please avoid casting aspersions on another editor's competence. This is especially true when you have just blocked someone out of process. I have no need to think Dream Guy is valuable, nor does anyone else. Our editors do not have to prove their worth to us: We have to prove their disruptiveness and destructiveness to reach for a block, and then we need to warn. Geogre 23:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I will extend the same caution to Giano. It really isn't necessary or profitable to talk about anyone's character. I understand that you were reacting to an apparent slur from him and being dragged into a discussion of his irregular block as an apparent attempt at distraction, and I know that readers miss these things, so we can't rely upon them to see what's really going on, but it's still not necessary or profitable to talk about David's character. Geogre 02:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble parsing the above post, but I think this is the first time I have ever seen Geogre criticize anything done by Giano. My respect for Geogre just went up. --Ideogram 09:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• It is a pity David Gerard decided to start making his veiled hints in the first place, and an even greater pity that to cover his behaviour he has to drag in completely uninvolved parties, such as myself. Claiming (above) I am unable to "comport" myself "decently on policy pages still appears to hold" when I merely express disquiet at being drageed in to his mess - says more about him than me. It seems to me to be about time some admins had their status reviewed, or at least were sent for re-training. Giano 09:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP indefinitely. He's using IPs rather than his official account to WP:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors, and since its unblocking has been edit-warring with it and making all sorts of un-civil attacks. Enough is enough, let him login as Dreamguy, and edit as that. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't time to look at this in detail. I trust Jayjg's judgment, but I also trust Bishonen's! Just a few points, though. One is that he is claiming on his talk page that he can't log on. I think Jayjg may have intended to do anon only in the block, but forgot? The other is that I don't think it's appropriate to be tagging the IP user page as an abusive sockpuppet of DreamGuy. "Abusive sockpuppet" really means sockpuppet used for double voting, multiple reverts, etc., not a sockpuppet who happens to be rude to people. As far as I know this IP was acknowledged by DreamGuy. I also have a question about the indefinite block of the IP. Without having time to examine the whole thing, I'd be inclined to leave it to Jayjg, if he says that the IP was being used to avoid scrutiny and to make uncivil attacks; but that IP's first edit was on 7 March this year, and DreamGuy has been around since November 2004. That would suggest that it's not a permanent IP, as it's unlikely that he'd decide to start making numerous logged-off edits after two and a half years. He says here that "this IP is a local DSL IP and by its nature will not be any specific person for more than a few weeks at a time". So, Jayjg, if you think his IP should be permanently blocked to prevent misuse, perhaps you should reduce it to a temporary block for this IP, and then block his next IP for a month, and then the next, and so on, if he keeps on doing the same thing. I'm not sure it's necessary, but I haven't examined it in detail. In any case, please have a look at the anon-only blocking thing, as your block may be preventing him from editing as DreamGuy as well. Musical Linguist 20:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just looked at the block log again, and I see that it was anon only. Don't know how I missed that first time. Anyway, he was claiming on his talk page that he couldn't log on as DreamGuy. But I see that he has posted as DreamGuy on the DreamGuy talk page since saying that he couldn't log on. Musical Linguist 20:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And ... as User:DreamGuy on the IP talk page, saying he needs the IP unblocked! Uh huh - David Gerard 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not using IPs to "avoid responsibility", and there is absolutely no policy against using IPs. Nobody at all has given any sort of rationale that these IPs were used in a deceptive way or to try to get around any policies. The IP should be unblocked as a matter of policy, but also for the fact that whenever the local DSL provider switches it it'll blocked for no reason. Yes, after peole complained that the IP block prevented me from signing on and they said either that it didn;t or tht someone had fixed it, yes, I did sign on. Certainly David Gerard of all people knows that the IP was not being used to avoid responsibility as people knew I was using it and were tracking it. I fear a number of people have simply gone into witch hunts where they make blocks and take actions completely unsupported by any policy for the simple fact that when I have the temerity to actually say out loud that they were out of line when they broke policies they were supposed to be here to be enforcing. That, after all, is what I was pointed to as an edit diff to explain the "uncivil remarks" claim.

If admins as a whole decide I have to edit logged in (and not just the whims of people making things up as they go along), fine, but then I would expect them to make a policy then that everyone has to be signed in and that all IP addresses are banned, or to otherwise come up with some sort of real rationale. I also expect, however, that if I do have to be signed in that steps are taken to discipline those people who have in the past gone around and blind reverted all my edits, or brought up whatever accusatoins somebody somewhere made years back to try to rationalize away why they don't have to treat me as a normal fellow editor. WP:AGF has gone completely out the window here, and the baseless blocks and accusations and etc. are far worse violations of the rules on civility than any less than polite comments I might say out of frustration when I have people constantly threatening (and doing) blocks for no reason whatsoever other than old grudges or (as the early conflicts under the IP) trying to previal in an edit dispute of an article.

Anyone going over my recent edits, both on this account and my IP, can see that I have made a large number of good and needed contributions, both over the last couple of days and over my history here. I think some people have just plain forgotten that we're here to write an encyclopedia and not to play some sort of experiment in social interactions and power struggles.

DreamGuy 00:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should stop "experimenting" in your social interactions - David Gerard 08:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BAN

A message was left on my talk page saying I was "banned" from editing certain articles.[2].

1. Looking at WP:BAN, only the Wikipedia community, the Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation can issue bans and not individual admins.
2. I cannot see why adding a flag image to a template would result in a ban- various other users have been adding the flag images back to templates were a certain group of users are defying consensus and deleting them. I have also provided reliable sources on various pages to support the fact that the Ulster Banner is the unoffical flag of Northern Ireland.
3. The allegations about sockpuppets are false- no checkuser request has been filed, and there is no evidence that the anon user was me. Astrotrain 16:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Banning editor notified here. Navou ^banter 16:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• You may also wish to list this ban for review at WP:CN. I would recommend reviewing the ban the editor placed, and not the actual editor himself, this might help keep the discussion focused on the "ban" rather than both the ban and the editor who "placed" it. I am using the term ban loosely in this context. Regards, Navou ^banter 16:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• • But is it even a "ban"?- the policy page does not state that admins can ban editors. And looking at the banning policy, content disputes that are not unique to me as an editor are not grounds. He is clearly biased against supporting a particular group of editors- he ignored a racist taunt made by one of his friends that I reported, while blocking me for merely stating my opinion that a particular editor was "inexperienced". Astrotrain 19:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • No, unless you have been sanctioned by arbcom or in some other fashion, individual admins cannot impose bans. But unless I'm missing something, the edits you have made do look rather tenuous and you should note that editing from an IP address does not excuse you from 3RR. In short, you may not have been "legally" been banned from those templates, but I would strongly suggest that you make sure that your edits reflect a consensus, rather than your point of view. --BigDT (416) 20:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A previous case of a "soft ban" being implemented by an admin, NicholasTurnbull was on certain editors regarding Peter Townshend.[3] This was discussed on AN/I.[4] The discussion continued on CN.[5] An alternative is a standard block, but where the problem is localised, this seems a better solution, as it allows the editor to work in areas where the particular problem does not occur. Astrotrain has made many productive edits elsewhere, but has proved unfortunately incapable of collaboration over Irish-related articles. My notice on his talk page is here:[6] Tyrenius 05:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that an influencing factor may have been the suggestion that Astrotrain allegedly sought to evade 3RR by using an IP address. I think the "partial ban" should be lifted until that issue is confirmed or denied by a checkuser. I have lodged aa request. - Kittybrewster (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That was merely something in addition to Astrotrain's continuing lack of required behaviour for a collegiate editing environment.Tyrenius 02:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Tyrenius, imposed this ban on User:Astrotrain after I requested him to look into both Astrotrain and User:84.68.93.126 who where stalking and reverting my edits, I had ask Astrotrain to stop his stalking here and warned him that I would report him for vandalism, it was after this that a new editor User:84.68.93.126 with no edit history began doing the same thing as can be seen here, neither Astrotrain nor User:84.68.93.126 made any attempt to discuss their reverts in the talkpages of these articles, dispite being ask to do so. This is not the First time I have had problem with Astrotrain in this aspect, and he was banned prior to this for similar behaviour and attacks on me other editors. I should add that after Tyrenius posted his ban notice to both editors, User:84.68.93.126 stopped making any edits after that, and hasn't posted since.--padraig3uk 14:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• The only edits I made were to add flag images to templates- this is not vandalism. In any case, it has been confirmed that Tyrenius's "ban" is invalid and he has no authority to do this- so his "ban" will be ignored. Astrotrain 11:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Where has this been confirmed, I see no confirmation of that here.--padraig3uk 11:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

An admin can certainly say "if you don't stop making this edit/disrupting this page, I will block you", and that's somewhat similar to a "ban" on the page. But no, an admin can't say "you can't edit this page at all", only ArbCom/Jimbo can. If Astrotrain engages in an ongoing edit war over an issue, he can be blocked for editwarring, but if you want him banned from the template page or all Irish-related pages or whatever, you need to talk to the ArbCom. Zocky | picture popups 17:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't discuss the current case because the question here is the general applicability of non-arbitration-imposed subject bans. Such bans with appropriate consensus and review have been successful on Wikipedia. This doesn't mean that the ban under discussion is likely to be successful, just that arbitration isn't always required. --Tony Sidaway 17:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

May I add that Astrotrain is most cases was simply reverting articles back to a previous consensus that was reached on such Northern Ireland - related pages. Users padraig3uk and vintagekits recently started mass disruptive edits on various Northern Ireland related pages, causing outbeaks of edit warring on previously stable pages which in turn have caused many of these pages to become protected. Tyrenius seems to have been excessively harsh on such user Astrotrain. Users padraig3uk and vintagekits are quick to contact Tyrenius if their actions are criticised in any way and will not accept anything negative being said about the clearly disruptive actions of such users, and Tyrenius is quick to label any negative comment on these users as a personal attack Jonto 18:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should state what these negative coments are? NI flag removed by IRA sympathisers. Restore NI's flag, NI flag removed my a noted IRA sympathiser. Restore NI's flag, User:Padraig3uk and his mate User:Vintagekits are noted IRA sympathisers, I very much doubt that you can describe an undoubted POV vandal such as User:Vintagekits as 'editing in good faith' and delete harrassment from terrorist supporters. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

When editors make comments such as "Thank God for the IRA" and "the term British makes my skin crawl", as well as yourself adding "IRA" then "1916" to your signature- they cannot complain when other editors make the reasonable assumption that they are sympathetic to this terrorist organisation. Astrotrain 08:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I made those comments or any such comments?.--padraig3uk 08:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Informationsdienst gegen Rechtsextremismus again and again severly vandalized

Need help there. Lemma was severally vandalized. A certain user:steschke was first politly asked not to delete informations that are well sourced. Please have a look on the disuccion too. Thanx in advance Pitohui 08:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN/3RR. Nishkid64 18:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

A new case of vandalism occured, I reverted it. Would you please protect the lemma? Regards Byzanz

Hallo, please observe the history and actual discussion page of the article closely.

User:Byzanz and before User:Pitohui carry on an edit war, calling sourced information "vandalizing the lemma" (with the exact same wording). They keep on to delete sourced informations about IDGR and put in their privat theory of a "pen" name and a "double" name of the editor in it - without any reliable source for that.

All references only show that Mrs. Margret Chatwin edited IDGR under that name and no one really knows her actual real name. The edit war on the name has no relation to the matter which is IDGR, not naming the editor of it with other names.

These arguments on the discussion page were completely ignored. So please decide whose behavior there is to be called "vandalism". 89.166.148.69 15:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

nice idea. Have a close and detailed look on the history of the lemma and the discussion page. Will take a little time to watch step by step but will be, no doubt about it, extremely helpfull. Afterwards you will be able to decide, who commited vandalism and who did not. Regards. Byzanz

It took a lot of time to repair demages and reinsert information which went lost when reverting the lemma becaus of deleting sourced information. Please see [7] On the whole all sourced informations plus some new fact should be given now. Regards Byzanz

user:stescke again comes along vandalising the lemma. Need help now. Byzanz 11:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Burk Hale

Burk Hale (talk · contribs) will simply not stop edit warring and pushing his extreme POV and original research (he continually argues that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which basically gave African-Americans and others the rights they have today) was the result of "subversive" action by the U.S. government. Also, there is a copyright concern with some of the text Burk Hale continues to add to this article. Burk Hale has been warned repeatedly on his talk page and on the talk pages of the relevant articles he has edited. Finally, consensus is clearly against Burk Hale's edits; several have opposed them and none has supported. Burk Hale clearly warrants a block for his continued, obvious disruption (I am involved in the dispute, thus I have not blocked him myself). · j e r s y k o talk · 12:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Burke Hale has also reverted the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress, three times in the last 2 hours [8], restoring his theory each time. Edward321 14:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked 48 hours for 3RR violation (five reverts in the last 12 hours or so), but I'd like to get more input on what to do with this editor. Natalie 14:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Jerseyko has given a good description. What he hasn't mentioned is that this user fails to assume good faith on the part of other editors and accuses everyone of being sock puppets. Heis being very disruptive by ignoring consensus to re-adding his material to a prominent article. -Will Beback · † · 21:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I expressed my views on Burke Hale a couple weeks ago - [9].

"While I appreciate Burke Hale bringing this interesting memorial to Wikipedia his repeated attempts to push his POV, ignoring several policies including those on concensus and original research, lead me to believe that he will never stop trying to push his theories unless he is blocked from editing the appropriate articles. He's clearly not willing to be reasoned with, claiming he has refuted others when he has done nothing of the kind and refusing to listen when people point out the flaws in his original research. Edward321 06:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)"

I am not alone in having problems with Burke Hale's actions, so have Rocket Fairy, Zantastik, Will Beback, Jersyko, Isotope23, and Famspear. In addition to his other problems, Burke Hale has grown increasingly insulting - incompentant being one of the nicer accusations he has made. [10]

Burke Hale has also insinuated that some of the people disagreeing with him are the same person [11], which Famspear has already refuted [12]. Edward321 00:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If we are to expand our conversation about Burk Hale beyond a single block for disruption, it is probably best to do so at the community noticeboard or in a user conduct RfC. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That might not be a bad idea. I removed his NPOV tag from the 14th Amendment article a few days back and reminded him that "not NPOV" is not the same thing as "not my POV". Apparently he feels that everyone who points out consensus is against him or the fact that his edits 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress are orignial research (as they are a novel synthesis and show a rather glaring misunderstanding of what constitutes law) is obviously completely biased against him. In my opinion at least, if you have 1 POV editor who is not adding anything of value to the article or discussion and is instead being tendentious it is probably a good idea to nip it in the bud.--Isotope23 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive mass merging and mass deletion by User:TTN

I noticed that this user made a sweeping merge of characters from the series 7th Heaven (no matter their importance in the series) last week without any prior discussion on talk pages and no attempt at gaining consensus first. They just did it because they decided it should be done. When confronted on their talk page about it, they acted like they do not care about what other editors think and that they will continue making edits like this whether or not other people agree with the changes. He won't even consider gaining a consensus when I gave him possible options with how he can do it and not be so controversial.

The main reason I am bringing this up though is because this isn't the first time this user has done this. I wasn't even aware of it until I looked at the other messages on their talk page and 10 out of 20 of their current messages have something to do with them deleting massive amounts of information from articles or mass merging. I've skimmed through their archived pages and find much of the same sort of messages to this person. On one message in particular, someone told him to use talk messages to settle disputes about a trivia section and their response was, "I will never use talk pages for something that trivial."

My concern about this user isn't so much that they're doing this (some of these merges/deletions were probably the best option), it's that they don't want to take any time to see what other people have to say first and allow them to voice their concern. They also don't feel the need to use talk pages to settle issues if they feel they are right, even when they could very well be wrong. They also consider anybody else disagreeing with them as rabid/obsessed fans even though their opinions were blatantly ignored from the beginning. Of course they're going to freak out if their articles are messed with that drastically without being informed first! I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done about this, but it would be nice if someone with a bit more authority could explain how disruptive this behavior can be. --pIrish 18:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"(no matter their importance in the series)" - Can someone help me? Being a character important in a series, movie, book, game, whatever, doesn't mean that the character deserves an independent wikipedia article, and that merging is probably a good idea. How does verifiability work with no suitable refs? But merging without discussion is probably not as successful. But maybe I'm wrong? Dan Beale 19:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If all he did was unilaterally merge game characters into a single article and zap a trivia section it sounds like he's done a good job. Are you sure there's any problematic behaviour here? Being bold is encouraged after all. (NB: I haven't actually followed any of the links, this is just a general comment). --kingboyk 20:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter would be a character so important in a series that he deserves his own article. So would Aslan from the The Chronicles of Narnia, Jack from Lost, and various others just because of the sheer complexity of the character. In the particular example about 7th Heaven, two characters, at the very most could possibly deserve their own articles (and their two articles could possibly be merged as one at that).

But that really was beside my point. I said multiple times in the message to the user (and here) that merging was probably the best course of action, however, not discussing the mass merge was the real problem I had. Which is the problem I am speaking of here. He's done this several times without even thinking about the fact that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not his own personal playground where he can make any decision he wants without thinking abuot the consequences or concerns of others. This is what I would like advice on and would like to know if anything can be done to remedy this user's behavior that causes controversy and disruption. --pIrish 20:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's not controversial (and presumably it isn't, as you said you don't disagree) it doesn't have to be discussed first. Bold, revert, discuss is a perfectly acceptable way of doing things here. That said, if he did the bold bit, you revert, and then he keeps reverting back without discussing it becomes a content dispute. Please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for steps you can take if it becomes an actual dispute. HTH. --kingboyk 20:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit I talked with him about was not controversial. However, other edits that are similar have received a bit of controversy and he has gone into edit wars over them and had no interest in trying to settle the disputes on the talk pages. This is evident by the majority of the messages on his talk page being negative reactions to these changes. He thinks only his way is the right way. He has no interest in keeping the peace. I understand being bold, but I also understand being polite and keeping etiquette. When did it become ok for someone to treat articles like their personal playgrounds where nobody else's opinions matter? --pIrish 20:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's always been the case! I can go edit any article around here, any way I want. You can too! If someone objects or reverts, then it's time to stop and talk. If no one does, no big deal. If you think the changes were wrong, you can revert them and say why so. On the other hand, this is not a bureaucracy, and just going ahead and making changes is a perfectly valid way of testing if such changes have a consensus, or starting discussion to develop one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Some sort of notification of this would have been nice. Would you point out some instances? In most cases, I only push the 3RR with anons that use all of the arguments covered by WP:ATA, and then soon give up after that. Most of the people on my talk page like to point out that I'm cutting "important information" when most of the time it goes against guidelines. Others are just content disputes that happen to pour over to my talk. Nemu 20:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to mostly get help in understanding and building my knowledge of the way Wikipedia works, not gang up on you so I don't particularly see why I should have notified you, especially considering I knew pretty much nothing but information and guidance for me would come of it. Like I have said multiple times now, I don't think most of your edits were bad or not warranted, I just feel like you should be notifying people first. The reason you get people freaking out on your talk page is because you didn't notify them. I wanted to see what the exact stance was with cases like this because I have never come across someone who was as unwilling to discuss major changes as you are. --pIrish 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, no, no, the reason for the messages on my talk page are either from people I'm just having a plain dispute with, people that don't understand that this site isn't a game guide/fan site, or people that realized a page was merged a month after it was actually merged, and have a problem with it. Nemu 20:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I understand that now. All I really had to go off of though was, "I really think you are removing way too much information from way too many articles." and "The mass deletion of the track listings for Mario Kart: Double Dash!! was uncalled for." That doesn't give me much room to assume anything other than exactly what they say and that people are angry you've done it without talking about it first. Clearing that up was helpful, but I still do maintain that massive edits should probably be discussed before. Of course, this does not apply to obvious policy-breaking and small or even medium edits. --pIrish 21:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick glance and all I see is a bold editor who knows the guidelines and is responsive on his talk page. I'm seeing good not bad. If I'm somehow wrong, please present some diffs. --kingboyk 20:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think all the above fails to meet the main point, TTN:

• 1: he does not merge, like some said above, he redirects to other pages, discarding much content
• 2: weather he is right or wrong he causes large amounts of content to be lost, and when confronted with a revert of his edit he engages in edit wars, instead of trying to achieve a consensus
• 3: he removes 3RR warnings and invitations to discussion from his talk page.

I am not saying this user is making incorrect edits, the problem is he engages in revert wars, instead of attempting to achieve a consensus, and refuses discussion. Hopefully someone more experienced than I may be able to explain to him better how to avoid edit wars. You may find an example of his edit wars at Mayor McDaniels. I would prefer to explain to him personally, however this is not possible due to him removing attempts at discussion from his user talk page, so I am forced to post here. --Jackaranga 03:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging if often cutting. The information removed is never crucial, and would be cut even if the page didn't stay. The above example isn't an edit war (unless two reverts is considered an edit war), so I felt no need to keep the message. If you didn't see, I asked for a discussion, but when you stepped in, he became content. Nemu 03:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And yes, there are four reverts over a period of time, but those are just cases of random people reverting anything that's merged without any reason, so you cannot really count those. Nemu 03:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You reverted four times in a short period of time for the exact same thing each and every time. This is the very definition of an edit war and would have been a violation of 3RR if it had been in the span of 24 hours, instead of being stretched over two days. After the first revert of the redirect, you should have immediately started discussion on the talk page to gain consensus. Instead? You chose to revert the edit and enter yourself into an edit war where four people disagreed with you, three of which were registered users, yet you still refused to discuss the issue on the talk page. This is the sort of disruptive behavior I tried to bring to attention here. --pIrish 04:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You cannot count a random anon and a guy that randomly reverts any sort of merge in the whole discussion part or in a revert war. They aren't the type to discuss. The anon went away, and he gave up. Those two are isolated incidents that shouldn't be lumped in with the other guy, who was persistent and seemed to have refused to discuss. Plus, there was already a consensus to merge articles on the project for that series. Nemu 04:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, those two are like people that just randomly revert a merge months after it happened. Those wouldn't require discussion, so these similar reverts also shouldn't, especially due to the fact that they didn't even give a reason for a revert. Nemu 04:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems User:TTN is also violating WP:SIG, specifically the part which reads : In no circumstance should a signature be used to impersonate another user: in particular, a signature should not be identical to the actual username of an existing user. His signature is "Nemu", which is the exact same username as User:Nemu. I do not understand why it is accepted in his case in particular, as it also makes it hard to understand who is writing.--Jackaranga 12:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully this was just an accident, and I would have told you on your talk page except you deleted my previous comments, and those of other users.--Jackaranga 12:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsure what to do

Ok, I searched "Chord" into wikipedia, and got a ton of e's - clear vandalism. I then copied what it said before and re-edited it back to what it was before the vandalise.

The person had attacked before, so I put semi-protection lock until some professional wikier saw to it. What should I do, or should I leave it with you guys?

You can see the events here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chord&action=history

--Dark dude 21:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but locking the page down seems excessive. Why not just address the vandal by warning or blocking, as appropriate?Chunky Rice 21:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

See Help:Reverting. Just revert back to the unvandalised version, warn the editor as described at Wikipedia:Vandalism. Adding a protection tag is on its own has no effect. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 22:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's true. The tag doesn't convey protection/s-protection; you need to be an admin to do that. Thanks for fixing the vandalism, though. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 12:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Spamming to promote non-notable Yahoo group

Repeated spamming of Syd Barrett The Piper at the Gates of Dawn ([13]) and Pink Floyd ([14]) by 84.24.5.107 (talk · contribs) with non-notable Yahoo group, contrary to notices on talk page and many reverts by different editors, on the former. Andy Mabbett 10:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Incident

Resolved

Not sure what to do about this: [15] --Savant13 12:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See also Fatuglyhor (talk · contribs) and Fatuglyhor2 (talk · contribs). Andy Mabbett 12:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Waggers has indefinitely blocked him. YechielMan 14:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Majorly

A a cup of tea for both of you guys as per Kelly. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

For the past few days, Majorly (talk · contribs) has seemed increasingly emotional or whatever in believing changes need to made to RFA as soon as possible. He has been making a lot of changes, leading to Template:RfA being full protected (twice now) and receiving a few warnings to tone it down. Now since he can't edit Template:RfA he's editing where it's transcluded (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Selket) to implement his changes there anyway.

I consider all of this to be disruptive and possibly in violation of protection policy, since the template was full protected to get him to stop edit warring over what is in the template. Thoughts? I personally think he should take a break from doing anything other than commenting on RFA... since it's basically his attempted changes to process that are causing all of this. --W.marsh 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The RfA appears to have been quite stable on bullets for several hours till you changed it, why are you edit warring over numbers? I was under the impression editors where trying several varieties of RfA lately? Matthew 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This was after his changes to the template (numbers to bullets) were reverted and the template protected. He's doing this kind of stuff in several places and no one but him really seems to be supporting it... as far as I know this wasn't discussed. Also the b'crats have been not very optimistic about the experiments, all 2 of them, see WT:RFA. --W.marsh 15:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't mind the change (I'm more of a discussion-ist than a voter), but I can understand your concerns in regards to implementation method. Matthew 15:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The RfA process is getting mad! That's too much. The problem is not limited in Majorly's actions but many other admins are involved as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to the confusion, I've been making a marginally-related (but hopefully less contentious) change to the template at the same time... --ais523 15:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally think RFA is working, and we should remember that: "If it works, don't fix it.". All these changes are actually worse than the current format (IMHO), and are (again, IMHO) disruptive. · AndonicO ^Talk 15:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How are they worse? All I've done is removed the numbers. Since RfA is for getting consensus, and should not be using numbers, tallies etc how can the current format be better? It just encourages people to vote. I am, however satisfied with the section edits put in by ais523. Majorly (hot!) 15:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is all just your opinion though, and you're edit warring to implement this stuff that a lot of people disagree about. You're still just arguing your changes should go in because you think they're right... obviously people disagree. --W.marsh 15:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Does the person whose RFA it is consent to having the numbers removed? If so, then I don't see a problem. --BigDT 15:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Majorly made the change here while voting... made no mention of the change being made. I don't see that the candidate was asked. Although I don't necessarily agree that a candidate can format their RFA however they feel like either. --W.marsh 15:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't vote. I give my opinion. Why should the candidate be asked? It's not even a major change, like Matt Britt's. Majorly (hot!) 15:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

W.marsh asks where was there discussion. There was none. I've been bold. You do know that tallies and numbers were added in without consensus as well? Does that mean it's wrong as well? Even if I tried to discuss it, believe me no one would agree to it. The only way to see it work is to try it. I can't even do that without marsh reverting me. Majorly (hot!) 15:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And the change to numbers lasted for years, and people still defend them. Here Majorly is openly saying he's acting against consensus... I don't know what else to say, that's the point I was trying to make myself. --W.marsh 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

People still defend voting yes, but is RfA a vote? What consensus is this I have acted against? Majorly (hot!) 15:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You just said "Even if I tried to discuss it, believe me no one would agree to it" so uh, that's the consensus you're acting against. I'm not going to argue about why RFA should have numbered sections here, that's not what this thread is about. Besides I'm sure my opinion is on the record in various places. --W.marsh 15:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant no one would agree either way. Majorly (hot!) 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

W.marsh, dude, you are like losing control or something here. Why don't you go have a cup of tea and let some people with slightly calmer heads deal with this issue, ok? Kelly Martin (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2007 (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.

blocked .svg images

For the past hour, it seems that .svg images won't display on Userpages. I've tried this on 3 different computers, after noticing that Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg didn't appear on a vandalism warning I put on someone's page.

After making more tests, I find that .png images are OK, but the problem is with .svg images: they display in articles, but not user pages. When I attempted to look at the source code for Stop hand, I got a "malicious code" warning – are you aware of this problem? JGHowes ^talk - 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem already fixed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Inutero2222 (talk · contribs)

This user's only edits have been to repeatedly deleted the criticism section from the Ashley Simpson article. It's weak, but talk page consensus is that it belongs and needs to be improved, and he's only deleted the whole section at a time, never added anything or worked selectively to trim it down. I reverted him a couple times, then checked his history and gave him a 48 hour block for a long history of reverts without productive contributions. He created a new account and left a message on my talk page (which I indef blocked as a sock), and now he's requesting an unblock. Someone want to take a look? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yamla turned down the unblock, and I entirely agree with Yamla's words. The unblock request does not show in any way that they understand the problem with their actions. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

NetSnipe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Found this on a new users page:

[16]

"Regarding warnings You're using all the wrong warnings and your spelling and grammar is quite atrocious and very unprofessional. From the looks of it, I doubt you're even over the age of 15. Please only use the standard warnings listed at WP:UTM. See Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism for further information on the correct way to deal with vandals. Thanks. NetSnipe"

From Netsnipe?? No way but yes, it was him! Is it just a bad day today? CINEGroup 17:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes people receive tons of reminders and messages re something they have done wrong but they never correct their behaviour. Maybe Netsnipe was a bit harsh but neither John Reaves, DLX, Gracenotes nor Chrislk02 were wrong. It seems that User:Staffwaterboy doesn't listen carefully. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Their 12th edit was a RfA self-nom indeed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just an application of WP:SPADE -M^ask? 18:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW. It is not User:NetSnipe but User:Netsnipe. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot keeps removing my articles

I am trying to contribute newsworthy material to Wikipedia and a bot by the name of Shadow1 keeps removing all my stuff from www.thesportsinterview.com. Please evaluate this bot and please take my site off removing stuff right away.

I am trying to contribute info, not spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportsInt (talk • contribs)

From your username, I'd gather that you're adding links to your own personal website, which isn't allowed per the policy on external links. MSJapan 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes you shouldn't be adding interviews from your own site, it is a conflict of interest. Also people do not think your site is notable enough to be considered a reliable source.--Dacium 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

btw, Shadow1 isnt a bot. (: He's a warm-blooded user. He does operate a few bots though. ~Crazytales 01:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you keep this up, your web site may get blacklisted so that nobody will be able to add it to any articles. -Amatulic 19:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Disgruntled user gets indefinite block, please review

Friday (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked Loomis51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely due to his harping on about personal attacks and his perceived one sided treatment by admins on wikipedia with respect to his contributions at the ref desk. (clarification: the italicized comment represent my own thoughts on the matter, not words used by Firday when delivering the block) [17] I think it is frustrating for admins and other ref desk regulars alike to see Loomis continue to display this negative attitude. But, while a cooling off period is probably a good thing, an indefinite block is probably unwarranted. For one, all of Loomis' recent comments were restricted to his own talk page. Could other admins review this block? Thanks David D. (Talk) 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, anyone who wants can feel free to adjust or remove this block as they see fit. I've washed my hands of this situation- I'm not well equipped to deal with this. Friday (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Has he even expressed a desire to be unblocked? I'd have to see some kind of remorse or willingness to behave better before considering it. John Reaves (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

He has expressed a desire to be unblocked, although, he has placed terms on the behaviour of the admins that frequent the ref desk: Loomis wrote:

"In short, if some necessary improvements are made, I request to be unblocked, and promise to be on my best behaviour. However, if those necessary improvements remain ignored, I have no interest in being unblocked, as I have no interest in once again participating in a project where WP:NPA except upon Lewis remains the governing guideline." For context

Loomis' grievances: [18]

Hope this helps David D. (Talk) 22:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, here is where Loomis says he'll keep being disruptive until I warn some other editors about personal attacks. I don't play the "do what I say or I'll keep being disruptive" game, so upon seeing this, I extended his block to indefinite. As I said, I've no objection to anyone else adjusting or removing, but I'm not personally inclined to spend even one additional second of my time helping an editor who threatens to keep being disruptive. Friday (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is worth nothing that Loomis has been deliberately skating rather close to the edge. I think it should be clarified that Loomis' 'harping on about personal attacks and his perceived one sided treatment by admins' is by no means the sole reason for his block (as an aside, those words are David's, and were never used by Friday), and that that particular conduct is not even the most important reason. Loomis' troubling behaviour is spread over many pages and a couple of months, so it's difficult to find all of the diffs. (Poor edit summary usage doesn't help.) Nevertheless, here's a sample of some of the behaviour that earned his block.

There is his insistence on calling another user a Nazi apologist and anti-Semite [19]; his habit of continuing to quote her out of context to further his attacks continues today: [20].

There were the disruptions to make a point; see for example these deletions of other editors' comments from talk pages: [21], [22], [23].

And, of course, his attempt to skirt WP:NPA by making comments on the contributions, and not the contributor (ahem): [24], [25].

Attempts by editors who had been on friendly terms with Loomis to help steer him away from trouble were met with cruelty and contempt: [26]. (Incidentally, I applaud JackofOz's continued attempts to bring Loomis back into the fold. Jack has the patience of a saint.)

Combine that with a stated intent to end any positive contribution to Wikipedia ([27]) and open acknowledgement that his behaviour has been and will continue to be deliberately disruptive: [28] "...all this admittedly disruptive behaviour of mine.... ...can you really blame me for being deliberately disruptive...? Of course you can't."

I don't even quite know how to describe this rant.

Loomis' talk page before he last blanked it (see this revision) shows numerous editors counselling him to calm down and avoid making personal attacks and engaging in disruption; this advice has gone unheeded. It might be reasonable to unblock Loomis at some point in the future if he calms down and agrees to avoid personal attacks, stops being deliberately disruptive, and becomes a paragon of courtesy and civility. Absent such guarantees – backed by some sort of parole arrangement – I fear that we would be in for more of the same conduct that brought us to this point in the first place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

When I saw this, I pictured something from a Lovecraft story. You know, where there's the guy who's ventured too deep into the ruins and is telling his partner to get the hell out of there. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been in discussion with Loomis for a few days and in that time he has gone from personal attacks ("friendships you seem to have developed with those so utterly beneath you such as Rockpocket, Ten, Clio, Friday, eric, and so many others..." [29] despite the fact he and I had never actually exchanged words when this was written) to praise [30]. A similar, albeit more extreme, pattern of behaviour seems to have occured between him and JackofOz (talk · contribs) and Clio the Muse (talk · contribs) (from this extraordinary display of admiration [31] to accusations of Nazi apologism.) My concern is with the emotional investment Loomis appears to invest in his editing, and whether that is healthy for him, and those who interact with him, in addition to disruption that results in. Perhaps an enforced period of reflection - something he has said he would like to take voluntarily, but can't help reneging on - would be the best solution. I'll continue to speak with Loomis and see if he will comply with that. Rockpocket 01:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Note for review. I have now protected User talk:Loomis51 for one month, as he was using his talk page to continue his personal attacks ("Please take your Nazi Apologist filth elsewhere. It's not welcome on my userpage."). I have suggested that he may contact an administrator via email to request a lift of protection if he agrees not to launch further attacks on the page, and if he wishes to participate positively in Wikipedia again. Another admin may lift this protection as he sees fit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat and article to watch out for.

Received this on the Unblock-en-l list today, from (redacted)

I am being blocked from creating an account because apparently my computer has been "tagged" as causing problems, or something. I live alone and I am the only person using this computer. I suspect I have been put in this list because information relating to "Bupropion/Wellbutrin" is 100% different than what you have listed.

I am starting legal action against GlaxoSmithKline for misrepresenting Wellbutrin and poisoning Americans with thier drugs. I spent 14 years under the thumb of GlaxoSmithKline and only when I started taking the generic of Wellbutrin (bupropion) did my psychological symptoms go away. Go to www.shippyceramics.com and go to the "gsk profits" link to find out the actual truth about a drug that is being taken by over 21,000,000 million people.

Until I am allowed to inform the public of the truth, I will include Wikipedia on my website as compliant in one of the largest mass-medications in earths history. GlaxoSmithKline is a terrorist organization, they are killing people and torturing them.

On the face, it's a clearly obvious legal threat against the project: Block, refer to foundation, move on. However, note the directly stated intent to damage the Wellbutrin and likely GlaxoSmithKline articles in response to this threat. WP:NOT a battleground etc. We should be keeping an eye out for this. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a philosophical problem with a block since this user has basically alerted us that he wants to add his POV to articles, but where is the "obvious legal threat against the project"? He just says "I will include Wikipedia on my website as compliant in one of the largest mass-medications in earths history." Since when is simply bad-mouthing the project a legal threat? -- DS1953 ^talk 01:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

He is suing Glaxo. He intends to list Wikipedia as "compliant" with Glaxo in the abuse of Wellbutrin. Obvious to me. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not just keep the kooks out? If a potential editor freely admits to paranoid ideations about the marketing of a drug used to treat psychological disorders, it's not a stretch to assume that he is not on any medication that might adequately treat his umm... "potentially disruptive" symptoms. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like he/she is already blocked from creating an account - must be the Wikipedia Pre-Crime Division at work. If so, nice catch. I'm happy to watchlist the articles in question. MastCell ^Talk 02:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that obvious bit, I should have taken a longer glance at this section. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming, Mastcell, that it was why it was sent to the unblock list, but since they didn't include an account name or IP, I had no way of knowing who it was (why I pointed it out here). I could be wrong, they could have run into an auto block and just sent an email to the unblock list by accident thinking it was the foundation's address. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Or, like a lot of people, they didn't read the autoblock message carefully and thought it was a regular block. Natalie 03:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally I just got a letter from another user (see my user talk), who was scared that they would be blocked due to the unblock list threat. I told them, after being incredibly confused by what they were talking about, I finally figured it out, and no I have no intention of blocking anyone. But in case anyone else is confused, and is reading this, I'm pretty well aware of who the person on the unblock list was. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user editing as IP

Blocked user Dhimwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) apparently editing using 82.20.124.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), including personal attacks. Andy Mabbett 09:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's mostly my fault for not enacting the same length block on both the IP and the account (they are the same person). I'd like to take this time to ask for a possible community ban of this user. He has harrassed via e-mail, used his account and IP to make continuous personal attacks, edit warring, disruption, etc...--Jersey Devil 12:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked users can't edit. If you want to come back, you request an unblock with a LOGICAL reason that doesn't involve bashing admins. You don't log out and continue editing, regardless of how you feel about the behavior of admins. JuJube 22:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone should extend the block to the IP address. Andy Mabbett 22:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is ongoing. Andy Mabbett 23:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User requesting unblock on the unblock-en list.

Is this the place to tell admins if DYK is backlogged and you need an admin to clear the backlog?

Resolved

If not, where should I go to alert admins of DYK backlog? --Kaypoh 13:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally, backlog notices are placed at WP:AN, and you could also leave a message at WT:DYK. YechielMan 14:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And place {{adminbacklog}} on top of the page to notify the sysops. (AQu01rius • Talk) 22:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot: Unjustified Edit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FileFront&diff=124931709&oldid=124931685

Shadowbot appears to have made an unjustified edit on the FileFront page. A user added a link to Alexa.org's traffic ranking for FileFront, which isn't spam at all, yet Shadowbot seems to have classified it as a spam link and removed it. Was this unjustified? RevenDS 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Uh have you asked the bot operator? --W.marsh 16:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The bot's page points people to here to report misedits. Is this not the correct protocol? RevenDS 18:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Generally you should report bot mistakes at User talk:Shadowbot. You only need come here if a bot is malfunctioning and may need action taking against it, which in this case isn't the situation. Will (aka Wimt) 22:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Lee Nysted returns

Could an administrator please look at 63.93.197.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who continues to insert references to Lee Nysted into the Matt Walker (drummer) article, even after their removal by several different editors. This IP is a obvious sockpuppet of permablocked user Lee Nysted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In addition to the pattern of editing, as noted on its talk page, the IP address resolves to AG Edwards, where Nysted claims to be a "Managing Director, Owner Senior Vice President Investments." ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

IP blocked for WP:3RR for 24 hours. If it isn't a sock, it sure is a meatpuppet.--Isotope23 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

CINEGroup (talk · contribs)

CINEGroup has engaged in a all kinds of disruptive activity in the past 24 hours.

He accused Netsnipe, an administrator, of conducting a personal attack.

He accused me and 8 editors in the past 24 hours either with vandalizing Wikipedia or creating nonsense articles. It seems that everyone he disagrees with gets threatened with a blocking notice. I received four 3RR warnings on [my disussion page] in the space of 10 minutes. This guy has also threatened the following editors in the past two hours with being blocked from editing:

• MKnight998
• Spence69
• Cherlrenae
• Jon6810
• Stagedives
• 158.59,214.157
• Rlhockey203
• Dwartam

This guy is clearly disruptive and a bully. Can you do anything about this? MiFeinberg 18:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h. Trolling, disruption and excessive use of warnings especially that they only joined the project a week ago. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• sigh*. I think both these editors need a time out so that they can read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. It appears that CINEGroup (talk • contribs) kept on labelling MiFeinberg (talk • contribs) as a single purpose account and striking out his votes at Talk:Walther P22 where's an ongoing edit war over whether to mention the gun's use in the Virginia Tech massacre. MiFeinberg (talk • contribs) keeps on reverting having his "vote" being discounted, CINEGroup (talk • contribs) issues WP:3RR warnings and reports MiFeinberg (talk • contribs) to WP:AIV at which point Chrislk02 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) issues a 1 hour block for "disruption", a block I personally find questionable. I then caution CINEGroup for being incivil in calling MiFeinberg a "single purpose account" when he clearly isn't and a vandal over a content dispute. CINEGroup then starts trolling my talk page and here as well. MiFeinberg on the other hand is indignant at being blocked and accuses CINEGroup of being a bully when all the above examples except for Jon6810 were appropriately issued warnings for vandalism. And to top things off, MiFeinberg has probably just been harshly blocked. It's my personal opinion that both CINEGroup and MiFeinberg have had their abuse reporting inappropriately taken at face value when it's clear both of them have grudges against each other. I'm going to sleep, so someone else can clean up this mess. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We just went through all this with User:CINEGroup on April 18th. He was throwing around 3RR warnings to editors for simply making three totally different edits to an article. [32]. A summary of my issues with his editing at the time is here where I pointed them out on his talk page. Then he posted a retirement message. Sigh. So far as I can tell, he seems pretty argumentative, unwilling to read policy or listen to advice (I'm still not convinced he understands WP:3RR) and is pretty convinced that his small number of contributions require that other's respect his judgement on all matters [33]. I think this editor needs to be seriously dissuaded from trying to mediate, punish or otherwise deal with editing conflicts on Wikipedia until his understanding of relevant policy is a little bit more seasoned. I think his intentions are good, but he's like a mall security guard who thinks he's a cop. He really does far too much wading into situations that he can't handle and trying to kick butt and take names. Cheers. Dina 19:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware of this past incident. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, i made a erronous block. I have apologied and taken it up with the editor. It happens to the best of us. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Checking some of these warnings (god, I really hate the "this is the only warning you will receive" in the hands of the ill-tempered), it seems some are bogus, or at least way to harsh. I'm going to go through, check contribs and remove some if they really don't apply. Dina 19:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You might further notice that there is even a complain against CINEGroup higher on this page under the heading "Odd." Clearly, this guy doesn't have the right temperament to be on Wikipedia. He treats it like a vast bare-knuckles bulletin board, not an online encyclopedia. MiFeinberg 19:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who posted that complaint. From the looks of it, it seemed as though this was an old user who'd "retired", but returned. It also seemed, though I have no evidence except conjecture, that this is a blocked user. His demeanor (attacks on other editors, especially), plus a couple of edits he's made AND his name, seems to suggest this. I have been speaking with an admin about this matter, as it is very serious. His MO seems to be to get into Wiki's good graces by performing helpful acts, then attacking others/vandalizing pages. That is, if this is the same user.

--Ispy1981 21:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I had an interaction with this editor yesterday - his first contact was to accuse me of "encouraging trolls" for replacing a speedy delete tag that had been removed when the creator added a "hangon" tag. The exchange we had was unpleasant and he/she certainly came across as unnecessarily aggresive and bullying. Natalie 20:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I also had interaction with this user before he "retired". He was unnecessarily aggresive and bullying, in my opinion as well. Daniel Bryant 23:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Derogatory and insulting comments by User:Xerxesnine

On the pages Talk:C++ and User_talk:Xerxesnine, Xerxesnine sparingly uses derogatory expressions like "petulant complaint", "hassles have been persistent", "persistent and disingenuous arguments", "puerile threats". He and previously User:Yamla do unsolicited accusations of people (including User:AnAccount2 and User:Red Baron) being my sockpuppets. The initial reason for this was my inclusion of the external link to the C++ page (this one, if somebody cares) and the dispute whether it conforms WP:EL or not. After User:Yamla erased it, I never restored it back, but I still think that this link does not contradict WP:EL and certainly I am not a spammer or vandal.

I have no sockpuppets and would gladly be checked by checkusers. I am ready even to give my real name to any checkuser. Furthermory, I would be just thrilled if Xerxesnine stopped his insults against me and other people who support my position. --Urod 18:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick comment: Checkuser is not going to get involved. According to WP:RFCU, they do not honor requests to "prove your innocence." This is a simple case of dispute resolution, which I leave for someone else to address. YechielMan 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to resolve the dispute (except by arbitration) when everyone who supports my point of view is declared to be my sockpuppet, and treated with extreme contempt. --Urod 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

But still thank you for the information. --Urod 22:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It would have been appropriate for Urod to notify me of this entry, as I just happened to stumble across it.

Regarding the external link, Urod closed his AMA request, stating "I am not interested in dealing with this dispute anymore." So clearly this is not about the external link.

The initial complaint was here. This, together with Urod's history with myself, User:Yamla, and User:Requestion provides ample justification for my skepticism. It is of course a matter of opinion about how to characterize Urod's behavior. In my view, "petulant" is being rather generous.

However the real reason I am writing here is to make sure it is understood that User:Rjakew used the wiki-link trick of [[User:Rjakew|Red Baron]] to make it seem as though his name was "Red Baron". Above, Urod has incorrectly referred to User:Red Baron, who has nothing to do with this. On Talk:C++, I rightly pointed out that it was disingenuous for Rjakew to attempt to pass himself off as Red Baron. Xerxesnine 01:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The AMA link request which I closed was about different articles , namely 3 software lists. Since two of them had been deleted, the issue lost it relevance. This happened before I added the external link to the C++ page. So it is rather irrelevant to the C++ external link issue. I don't know why Xerxesnine mentions it here. Finally, Xerxesnine's phrases "petulant complaint", "hassles have been persistent", "persistent and disingenuous arguments", "puerile threats" related partly to me and partly to AnAccount2, not User:Rjakew or User:Red Baron. --Urod 01:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (modified --Urod 01:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

Xerxesnine wrote "It would have been appropriate for Urod to notify me of this entry..." However, previously he called both me and AnAccount2 (he believes that AnAccount2 is my sockpuppet) "an especially persistent nuisance" on his talk page. Why should I talk to somebody who thinks that I am "an especially persistent nuisance"? Judging from past experience, he would probably call my message "petulant", "hassle" or another similar name. --Urod 02:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (typo fixed --Urod 02:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

possible COI/check user incident?

Moved to the conflict of interest noticeboard. MER-C 03:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Lee Nysted (talk · contribs) and Matt Walker (drummer)

Related report WP:ANI#Lee Nysted returns

I blocked 63.93.197.67 (talk · contribs · logs) for WP:3RR per that report for 24 hours. The person claims to be "Steve" and the IP resolves to a company that Lee Nysted has claimed to work for. After the IP block, another IP 67.186.123.21 (talk · contribs) has shown up also claiming to be "Steve" which would be block evasion to me. The IP resolves to Comcast in Illinois, one of the places Nysted claims residence. I've semi-protected the article for the time being to avoid any more silliness and opened an RfC with the request that completely outside opinions (i.e. nobody that has previously interacted with Nysted or from an IP that is likely to be connected to him), but since I've apparently become involved here and it is being claimed on talk:Matt Walker (drummer) that I have some sort of bias here (and in all fairness I've had some interaction with Nysted in the past as I've mentioned on that talkpage) I'd appreciate it if someone uninvolved would have a look at the IPs and the article protection and determine if the blocks or protection should be adjusted. I will say that the RFC may be a mistake on my part given the sock/meatpuppetry surrounding Mr. Nysted in the past, but hopefully we can get at least a few real legit editors chiming in to establish a consensus here.--Isotope23 20:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Further light reading:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Lee_Nysted_Experience
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive72#The_Lee_Nysted_experience
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive77#Lee_Nysted

--Isotope23 20:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment:

Mr. Isotope,

The article in question is not about Nysted. It is about Walker, the drummer. You are confusing the two issues and causing more disruption than is necessary. I stated I am here to contribute to the making of an article about Matt. I am going to add to Matt's discography, pictures, and his history. You left the part I put up about his current tour and took down the discography. The albums that this artist plays on should be in his profile/discography. I have verifiable real life sources that are considered reliable by Wikipedia. Please let me go to work. If anyone comes here that is not part of the Nysted history, that would be fine. Otherwise we are beating an old dead horse and it is a waste of time. This issue could go to Steadman and Brandt to see how they think we could resolve these things. ??? The discussion should be at the Walker page and you should not be "re-trying" Nysted in abstentia. WebmasterSD. (Lake Forest, IL. BTW, The Steve you were talking to is in St. Louis. 67.186.123.21 06:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Unjust ban for non-violation of WP:3RR

Resolved

User:Rotten made three reverts on William Connolley[34] and was banned for it[35] by User:Atlant.[36] The other user, User:Stephan Schulz, who made 3 reverts as well was only warned by Atlant.[37]— Preceding unsigned comment added by UBeR (talk • contribs) 22:50, April 24, 2007

Rotten violated 3RR and WP:BLP, which is more important.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. He was still (falsely) blocked on grounds of 3RR.[38] Maybe Atlant was not aware three reverts is allowed. Who knows. ~ UBeR 23:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Three is just an arbitrary number. Edit warring is still harmful.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And I agree, but I don't think you should arbitrarily block one instead of the other because you agree with the other edit warrior. ~ UBeR 00:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's a block, not a ban.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Semantics. ~ UBeR 23:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And self-referential referencing to make a point about the subject of the biography who happens to be a Wikipedia editor that it is known you have issues with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Ryulong, nothing more to see here. – Steel 23:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The WP:3RR explicitly does not apply to editors who are removing unsourced material from biographies of living persons. Any such material may be reverted and removed at any time. Stephan Schulz was doing just that - removing unsourced attacks from the article. FCYTravis 03:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ockenbock

I've been continuously harassed, basically every day, by the walled garden of Ockenbock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (for more background information see: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Viva La France). You can see the accumulated nonsense here. Is there anything that can be done at this point? It's getting fairly ridiculous. It's getting fairly ridiculous. It's been pure harassment since late January up until now with almost one sock attack a day. Metros232 00:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I have nothing more to suggest than the usual steps: checkuser as many of the socks as possible and talk to a checkuser about rangeblocks; raise the possibility of an ISP report if there's an identifiable and consistent ISP behind the socks; and semiprotect your pages if the socks are recently created rather than aged. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful than that because I emphathize with the situation. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block: Dastard

The user account User:Dastard has been used only to create articles most of which sport the phrase "THis Page is meant to entertain and Humiliate certain People." and all of which do exactly this. I have indefinitely blocked this account. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Attack/nonsense articles only, warned more than enough. Kuru ^talk 01:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Routine vandal/nonsense/attack-only block. Newyorkbrad 01:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good use of the block-button Ceyockey. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Masterofsuspense sockpuppet recruitment

I've reported User:MasterofsuspensePT(priston tale) to WP:AIV for this edit to their user page. It indicates a recruitment of people for sockpuppetry. I don't have time to follow up on it now. Perhaps an admin/someone else can see if the users mentioned are blocked. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 02:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. The account has been blocked and the pages deleted. As for the people who signed up, it looks like they would have almost all have been username-blocked at inception anyway. Newyorkbrad 02:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocks for meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry

See also: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration § Cabalism

The following discussion 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.

---

I'm submitting to my fellows a report regarding a group of editors acting as meatpuppets of the banned editor Hkelkar. The core evidence for this is e-mails exchanged between these individuals — Hkelkar is intimately involved in discussing Wikipedia issues and affairs, offering advice and instructions to the others. There is no doubt that these editors are colluding with Hkelkar and editing for his purposes as proxies. The group was targeting Dbachmann (whom they consider to be anti-Hindu) and maligning other editors such as Bhadani. However, I will not display the contents of the e-mails here unless the community deems it necessary.

• Bakasuprman, Dangerous-Boy and Sbhushan have been blocked indefinitely for meatpuppetry and scheming with Hkelkar. Bakasuprman and Dangerous-Boy have been regularly violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for some time, while strenously defending a pro-Hkelkar point of view on Wikipedia articles. They has also behaved disruptively against editors they considers to be biased against Hinduism and India. Complaints about Bakasuprman's behavior have been lodged both on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan.

• Scheibenzahl has been blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of Anupamsr, who in turn has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and participating in scheming with Hkelkar, Bakasuprman and Sbhushan. He has used his sockpuppet to participate in various WP:AFD debates and editing issues on the same range of articles as Bakasuprman and Sbhushan.

I know that this is a complicated issue, so I ask for my fellows to review my decisions. I will respect any criticism offered and any consensus decision to undo or modify the blocks as deemed appropriate. However, I would like to emphasize that permitting these editors to continue to edit Wikipedia defies the arbitration committee and the community's decision to ban Hkelkar. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll note that CheckUser confirms that Scheibenzahl and Anupamsr are the same person. Dmcdevit·t 06:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, 3 more socks of Hkelkar were found and blocked. One of them was User:ThLinGan. ThLinGan was involved in an edit war with User:Faraz. Note how both Bakasuprman [39] and Hkelkar together try and get the user blocked under 3RR by goading him. Calling someones edits ISIcruft is like saying OSAMAcruft in India. Baka knows this and has been warned hundreds of times not to do this. I have been suspecting these users of tag-team editing for a long time. I was waiting for my exams to get over before investigating their edits for a possible ArbCom case. If there is email evidence supporting Rama's claims, then I fully endorse the blocks. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Rama's actions, assuming the behind-scenes evidence is as compelling as he says. Looks like a pretty good call to me. There's no doubt Bakasuprman and Sbhushan have been disruptive elements for a long time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse Rama Arrow's actions. I helped him compile some of the email evidence and have seen much of it. I had suspected their meetings with Hkelkar for some time now ever ever since their behavious became more uncivil. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a strong enough evidence against User:Bakasuprman to warrant such a massive ban. I propose to unblock him on the condition to temporarily restrict his participation solely to self-defense. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman was one of the most vocal Hkelkar supporters and I support his ban. It had reached the point where is Bakasuprman said something wasn't PoV or someone wasn't a Hkelkar sockpuppet, then you could immediately assume that it was PoV and they were a sockpuppet of Hkelkar. – Steel 12:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Full endorsement of Rama's actions. Another Indian admin has previously provided me also with evidence of a well organized recruition campaign in Hindu radical websites, made by what appears to be one of the three blocked editors. On my account, I have long noted the concerted and disruptive behaviour of the editors in question; I must also add that I've long suspected of a direct link between Bakasuprman and his socks, at least since his passionate defence defence of Hkelkar's sock User:Rumpelstiltskin223 after its indef blocking.--Aldux 15:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Note I have reset Scheibenzahl's block to 2 weeks (the user:Anupamsr account has been indef'd, as he doesn't want to use that one) - apart from his explanations and confession, from the e-mail evidence I know that he wasn't a malicious member of the group, and it is certainly possible that he was an accidental or unwilling member - the main schemers were Bakasuprman, Sbhushan and D-Boy. But Scheibenzhal must be blocked for a period for manipulating WP:SOCK and potentially acting as a meatpuppet. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked Scheibenzahl - Anupam had changed his identity for legitimate purposes. As a number of respectable admins have vouched for his integrity, I can also safely assert that he was not a willing member of the email ring. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not comment on the specific users who were affected by this action, but I support in general terms talking very strong action to stop the organized activity by sock- and meat-puppets that is without question taking place. I have seen some of the evidence on public social networking web sites of active recruitment efforts for these things, and call upon all editors to reject these manipulations with one voice. At present the identification of these puppets is limited by the lack of any simple single place to post suspect activity reports. Would it be possible to have a "Sock Central" page where reports of all current activity specifically related to the Hinduism and India projects can be consolidated? Currently there are too many individual tracking systems going on. Buddhipriya 21:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the utility of such a page if it's devoted to sock detection. "Pages under potential attack" might be a better focus. That said, I think it's important to realize that such recruiting activity and the willing supply of volunteers will not stop. The basic reason has to do with the difference between verifiability and "truth". The recruiting efforts will complain that "the truth is under attack", and volunteers will step up -- be it noted, in good faith. The true socks will operate in the confusion sowed by these newbies' well-meaning efforts. (A "counter-offensive", on those public recruiting web-sites -- explaining only the verifiablity/truth difference and emphasizing NPOV -- might not be a bad idea too.) rudra 22:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Rudra, I think your idea of a "Pages under potential attack" is very good, sort of a community watchlist which all of us can monitor for current sock activity. I have noticed that as we pay more attention in one area, other pages begin to have problems, and some of the pages have very few editors who watch them regularly. Do other editors agree? If so, where could such a page be set up? Buddhipriya 05:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In think Bakasuprman should be unblocked at least for the purposes of defending himself. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is possible for Bakasuprman to defend himself by posting an unblock template on his user-talk page. If he provides a convincing argument, we may weaken his block accordingly. Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I have decided to shorten the blocks of Bakasuprman and Dangerous-Boy to 6 months. This is because an indefinite block is a community ban, which must be decided in a distinct discussion at WP:CN. Given that Hkelkar himself was not indefinitely blocked until he violated his ArbCom-ruled block 5-6 times, it is hardly fair to ban these two users. Also, Bakasuprman and Dangerous-Boy have made a number of valuable contributions, which must be respected. However, I don't think this applies for Sbhushan - upon arriving on Wikipedia, he immediately entered into a dispute with Dbachmann and wrote up a baseless ArbCom case. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Bakasuprman should be given an opportunity to defend himself, especially regarding the emails he is accused of being a part of. Blocking him, bundling him with others and judging him is not democratic. The other accusations on him can be balanced by good deeds he has done.Dineshkannambadi 02:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Also, 6 month ban is a long time. Please consider reducing it.Dineshkannambadi 02:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing by proxy for a banned user is extremely serious - I am strongly opposed to reducing his block now, or unblocking him for "defense" - anything he has to say, he can say on his user talk page or in an unblock request. It was not his meatpuppetry alone that caused his 6-month block - it was also his history of edit-warring, confrontational behavior, POV-pushing, persistent incivility and personal attacks. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. However I am afraid a 6 month ban could be as good as a permanent ban. Many users may not have the interest to come back and make useful contributions, while our goal is to ensure just the opposite. IMO a gradual application of the ban is better.Dineshkannambadi 03:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

While I support Rama's actions on preventing meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry, I strongly believe the 6 month block on User:Bakasuprman is little too harsh. I for one, once (during Hkelkar's RFArb) had written about Baka's contentious editing and POV pushing. But certainly not in the recent past. His constructive contributions (with all those DYKs and collaborations) are much significant than the negative side of it. I do not certainly endorse any of his confrontational behavior or personal attacks. But for all these gross incivility, 6 month ban is just too harsh, especially when it is not of community consensus or of an ArbCom decision. I request to re-consider the block on Bakasupraman. As Dinesh suggested above, a gradual application of blocks is more appropriate for users who have significant constructive contributions for a very long time. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 03:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation is the same as what I would offer all users: uphold the harsh block, with the understanding that this can and should be reduced, perhaps to the point of an immediate unblock, upon admission of and repentance for the disputed behavior. The way we fail time and time again is by sending serious and committed, if problematic, editors away without any attempt to seek a mutual understanding. Who can be surprised when they return to sockpuppet? We should not compromise our principles, but reframe punitive measures, wherever possible, as demands to acknowledge and abide by these principles. If they don't do it, they will remain blocked - there is no point unblocking them at any time, six months, a year, etc. - if the do, there is no point keeping them blocked for any substantial amount of time.

Per Jayjg, I suggest that Bakasuprman be unblocked for the sole purpose of appearing on this noticeboard with his dignity intact, with the understanding that any other edits will lead to a ban, and that the community both expects and demands that he address the disputed behavior.

Bakasuprman, if these allegations are true, I invite you to appear here and confess. Repentance and petitions for amnesty are very rare in this ego-driven space. Many comments to this thread acknowledge a history of productive edits alongside some contentious ones, and, apart from this recent allegation, a pattern of improvement. You've been blocked for proxying for a banned user, not for your contribution history per se, and I would be very surprised if an admission of wrongdoing and an appeal for leniency - that is, to plead guilty (if you are, indeed, guilty) and throw yourself upon the mercy of the court - were met with anything other than compassion.

If they are not true, then contest them.Proabivouac 08:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Though I have seldom edited any of the 'Hindu' articles, I've followed both Baka and dab and their respective 'continuums' since the last several months. I am fully aware of the history of incivility and tendentious editing that has gone into those articles. I have had my run ins with both baka and dab. At the same time, I've worked in tandem with both of them on some other articles.
• As a dispassionate editor, the way I see it, Baka's problems have only been with a section of users involved in editing the 'Hindu' articles. Baka has certainly been incivil with many of them, but then, it is equally true that many of them have only been trolls and sockpuppets themselves or in other cases(as in the case of dab) been equally incivil with him. For example, while Baka's 'dabcruft' snap was unwarranted, so was dab's repeated insinuations of 'Hindutva trolls'. Everyone involved just gave as good as they got. A 'dabcruft' for example, and such other instances of incivility, has almost always been preceded by or met with an equally disruptive 'Hindu cabal' insinuation.
• I've seen Rama's Arrow, for example, pull up Baka for the 'dabcruft' thing while I didnt see him say a word to dab even as he admitted to Baka's himself that dab had been incivil too. Thats hardly befitting a 'no nonsense-fair-to-a-fault admin'. And btw, lest somebody misinterpret me, let me clarify that when I speak of Baka and dab.. I mean their entire 'continuums'... not just Baka and dab.
• Even in the recent Hindutva propaganda AfD all the "keep" votes were just about ad hominem 'hindutva cabal' banter. As Daniel was to later note, none of them even deemed it necessary or worse, even worth their time, to counter the very valid oppositions of the "delete" voters(Baka included). And once it got deleted, we saw a rudra and a Fowler waxing eloquent and pontificating on the deletion review and multiple user talk pages. And even there, it was simply wallowing in their own delusions and rank bad soapboxing. Seeing the case that the rudras and the fowlers made for undeleting the article and noting the almost unanimous community endorse of the delete, some of these users should have been hauled up for disruption if not for WP:POINT(for even taking it to DRV). Nothing of that sort happened.
• dab's move of the article in the middle of an AfD was infact, trolling if not serious disruption. I didnt see Rama's Arrow or any other admin(I am sure it was on the watchlists of every admin who's watching this) even so much as tell dab that his move was inappropriate; that he should at best, have requested a move from another admin. Nothing of that sort happened either.
• Even as I mince no words being critical of these users, let me assert that I have nothing personal against any of them. I have the highest regard for their contributions just as I do for Baka's. But then, there are cases where I disagree with them and I dont believe in sugar coating my words just to be in somebody's good books.
• Even as I read Jimbo speak(four years ago, admittedly) of sysopping 'semi willy nilly', we have admins making a case for him to do exactly that. I mean... if one admin can throw his weight around on an AfD of his own article and if the other admins just stand by and watch, that really doesnt make for a level playing field. Nor can it earn those admins any moral high ground to pontificate from. The admins cant just stand by and keep watching till it hits a crescendo and then pull up whoever loses the anger management game. Wikipedia is not about anger management. Certainly not. These are users that are trying hard(probably too hard) to build an encyclopedia and it is easy for one thing to lead to another and for the whole thing to degenerate into a free for all. This is where admins ought to move in and counsel both parties and if need be force a dispute resolution. All that we've had here is admins trying not to get their hands dirty and then pouncing on the first one they get 'incriminating evidence' about. Thats not fair.
• At the same time, to be fair to dab(in this case I speak only of dab), I do not think that he is acting in bad faith or that he is anti-hindu or anti-india or anything. It is just that he carries several misplaced stereotypes which he is convinced is NPOV. I can say similar things of Baka too. He is NOT acting in bad faith. The very crux of the problem as I see it is that both are not assuming good faith. Infact, they're assuming bad faith.
• Now, for all those of you who want to know what all this has to do with the socking and meating allegations, I can only ask you to stop acting so naive. Otherwise, you're going against the spirit of every policy and guideline out there.
• To wrap up, I submit that the 6 month ban is way too harsh. Like dinesh says, its as good as a permanent ban. I strongly urge the admins to reconsider the case and unblock him. I further suggest that both parties be banned from editing these contentious articles for a while. In any case, the very least that I demand is that they be unblocked atleast to argue their case. Sarvagnya 09:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

At the cost of being called naive, I have to ask you - what has all this got to do with meatpuppetry and making proxy edits for a banned user? Hkelkar was banned by the ArbCom, and we have got evidence that Bakaman and others were corresponding with Hkelkar and making edits on behalf of Hkelkar. The ArbCom has ruled that if two users are making the same edits then it does not matter who is making them. We can treat all users as the same person. If you have a problem with Dab, please open a RfC or an ArbCom case. But don't tell me that Bakaman's disputes with Dab led him to make proxy edits for Hkelkar. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I havent seen the evidence you have. But going by what little RA has said about it and from what you say, I assume that you have evidence to the effect -

• Baka corresponded with Hkelkar
• Baka made some edits in line with Hkelkar's POV.

Now that could be incriminating only if you can establish that Baka carried out Hk's bidding. No arbcom can force two individuals not to meet outside wiki. Not only that, you would also have to establish that Baka would NOT have made those edits if Hkelkar had not asked him to. Knowing Baka's editing practices and also how closely their POVs match, I think its a given that Baka would make the edits he makes Hkelkar or not. That you 'caught' him corresponding with hkelkar outside wiki is not 'incriminating' enough. Sarvagnya 09:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikilawyering? - Aksi_great (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets keep the banter out. Please. Sarvagnya 10:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Sarvagnya, Aksi is right. By himself, Baka was a tendentious, incivil and often disruptive editor. With the direct connection to Hkelkar, we simply have a Baka-Kelkar combine operating. A softer block will do nothing to drive home the seriousness of Baka's offenses - tell me frankly, how will we know he doesn't continue to contact Kelkar? We should be thankful for the evidence we have, but don't expect Baka to make the same mistake twice. Contrary to some views, a 6-month ban is the most pragmatic, given Hkelkar's 1-year ArbCom ban and perma-ban from the community. Ideological warriors must be handed a long-term blocks to make sure that if/upon their return, their minds have been given sufficient time to make peace with Wikipedia's norms and edit to build an encyclopedia. We know Baka and D-Boy are capable of that, so a 6-month ban is the most pragmatic and humane - remember, they have consorted with someone the ArbCom banned for 1 year. This is half of that, plus the benefit of "good behavior" parole (sorry for the police lingo). As for their "dignity" and "defense," those can be made on their talkpages - we cannot unblock people for that. If they have a case for their unblocking, that can be made with an unblock request. See the example of Scheibenzahl — he stated his "defense" and regained his "dignity." Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 12:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually we are in the zone where we look at blocking as a "punishment," when it is clearly not supposed to be. The overall goal of blocking these users is to protect the content of Wikipedia as well as other contributors. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an ideological battleground - we have no obligation to anyone who doesn't want to understand that. They must either understand that or leave - I can remember numerous times when I lectured Baka on civility and "encyclopedia-building." He contributed well to DYK, but editing by proxy for a banned troll is most serious an offense. Baka is no stranger to Wikipedia's policies - he was involved as a party in 2 ArbCom cases. As Aldux points out, Baka waged war whenever anyone discussed Hkelkar and his sockpuppetry or engaged in a content dispute with him. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 12:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow is correct. Over the past few months, both Baka and D-Boy were showing signs of prioritising their POV ahead of building the encyclopedia. I can't be bothered to search the links, but if you want non-email evidence, just go through the past four of five archives. I had constantly warned them and said Wikipedia was an encyclopedia where everybody regardless of background collaborate together. Their reaction was calling me a "weak, ballless Hindu." Again a week or two on Bhadani's talk page, D-Boy accused me and dab of "betraying the Hindus." I had told him time after time that WP:NPOV takes precendence over individual POVs, but they didn't listen. Gizza^{Chat ©} 13:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the lack of solid evidence of serious wrongdoing, it seems very inappropriate to me for this discussion to go on here, while User:Bakasuprman is confined to his talk page. Therefore I am unblocking him. I am asking him to accept the condition to restrict his participation to this case for now. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I never attacked bhadani, nor have I maligned him in any way, considering him as a wikipedian I respect
• I have not "Taken orders" from Hkelkar, I am most capable of understanding my own worldview. There are many users with similar POV's as well
• Hkelkar, contrary to popular belief, has not kept me in the loop about his sockpuppetry and has not listened the many times we have told him to stop. I do not ask him to revert, edit, or exist on wikipedia, he does so on his own and against the wishes of many of us who actually hope new users on Hinduism topics are just that, new users.
• I do not post to forums ranting and recruiting acolytes on Hindutva whine boards. Hindu Unity is full of retards who have seizures when they see an Indian woman being kissed by a foreigner. It does not bother me in the least bit who does what. In fact, posting there would be counterproductive since it is people like HU that make Hindutva look like a group of fanatics
• I have not violated 3RR ever nor do I need to. Wikipedia will be here tomorrow, a fact Hkelkar never understood. The fiasco at Great Power is a prime example of this.
• Rumplestiltskin was not known by me to be hkelkar's sockpuppet, and I was rather disappointed hkelkar would resort to these tricks. After that, I am certain I have not advocated for "Hkelkar" under any guise.
• Aksi's appeal to WP:Wikilawyering is a joke. Sarvagnya drives the point home. Nobody can deny that I have my own POV. Hkelkar does not order me around. It is quite obvious I have eccentric tastes in editing and am not accountable to anyone. I have made edits in line with Hkelkar's POV even when he was on wiki. Am I supposed to have an epiphany and stop?
• The evidence Rama has is an assertion. I have called his bluff. My part in the emails was encouraging the other users to get their head out of the toilet and work on India related pages, Hinduism related pages, and to build bridges with other users. Not scheming and proxying.
• Potential Personal attack and incivility problems are dealt with an RFC, WP:MEDCABAL. Then comes Arbcom, after an RFC or medcabal. Not with an unjustified 6 month vigilante block based on an ambiguous construct, false assumptions, faulty casual relation, faulty analogical reasoning and evidence that does not corroborate to his invalid assertions. Its highly opprobrious, the conduct, but I'm not going to make this personal.

I will not be active in the near future whatever the result.Bakaman 23:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe Rama's arrow past involvement with this user gives him a predispositional opinion of this user's behavior on Wikipedia. I agree that Bakasuprman has violated WP:CIVIL and made some personal attacks. I understand that his edits on Wikipedia may be promoting the Hkelkar-view, but frankly, I fail to see this as a real reason to block a user for such a long period of time. From what I have seen, Baka has his own views that correlate with Hkelkar and he has probably discussed this with Hkelkar, but I don't see how one can honestly block an editor for promoting the same views of another editor, even if he is blocked as a result of an ArbCom hearing. I wish for Baka to remain unblocked for the time-being, and an appropriate block duration be decided by a group of editors, instead of just one. Six months is too long. You must also take into account Baka's positive edits on Wikipedia, and a lot of the work he has done with DYK and editing other articles. We usually hand out long blocks to abusive editors, who have repeatedly violated rules and have been blocked for it. Bakasuprman does not fit into that category, and aligning him to other such users that have been abusive editors like those banned in previous ArbCom hearings seems unfair. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not forgetting something, are we? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 00:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear here - some people are mistakenly assuming that Baka was blocked for sharing Hkelkar's POVs. That is not the case - the reality is explicit meatpuppetry. The only reason I have not displayed the evidence is that it is very controversial and generally not accepted to publish contents of a private e-mail. But if the community desires to see the evidence - and there should be a consensus agreeing to want to see it; I'm not gonna break any policy/guideline/convention - I will happily post it here. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 00:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Retaliating at your blocker is a natural response (at least he removed it afterwards). I would be frustrated if I was blocked for what may or may not be a particularly justifiable reason. Also, I have already seen the private emails of which you speak of. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed disappointing that having seen the evidence, you still think he deserves to be unblocked. "Retaliating at your blocker is a natural response?" Perhaps you'd like to see the example of user:Schiebenzahl, who showed his personal anger but made no personal attacks. Is "Tit-for-tat" is justified by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA? Its a joke that Baka says he doesn't want to make it personal, after he attacked me personally and tried to hide it. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 00:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I never said his personal attacks were justified. I was offering an explanation as to why he wrote that on his user talk page. Anyway, I advocate for a block as a result of personal attacks, violation of WP:CIVIL, etc. I don't believe a long block is justified for that, so I'm thinking of something like two weeks, max. I'm not trying to be lenient or anything, but that's what I feel is reasonable. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Baka is not being blocked just for his disruptive editing - he is blocked as a meatpuppet/colluder of Hkelkar. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 00:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I know...I already dismissed the Hkelkar meatpuppet claims. I'm talking about what I feel is blockable. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Already dismissed?" How? The consensus here is upholding the block, which you seem to have "dismissed" as well. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone is still following this, I'd like to add my strong support to this block. I argued during the HKelkar arbitration that Baka be studied as well, but received strong indications that, given the mess that that had become, the ArbCom was going to not examine his behaviour very closely. However, that decision seems to have empowered Bakasuprman; he has several times used the fact that he was not banned at that point as justification for his tendentiousness, and has told me that I violate the community's beliefs that he is a tremendously productive editor. As Gizza has said elsewhere, and as I have said time and again since last December, tendentiousness and disruption of this sort are not balanced out by energy. I believed the community was incapable of action in this case, and thus that an organised group of POV-pushers could effectively use WP as a soapbox for pseudoscience and so on; and am glad to see that the community's patience has run out. Hornplease 01:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't fully endorse these blocks without looking at the email evidence, but I think we need to trust that Rama's Arrow made the blocks on what he felt was very strong evidence, and we can't dismiss the meatpuppet claims without taking a look at the emails. Humus Sapiens' unblock of Baka was a mistake, in my opinion. Rama's Arrow, would it be possible to share the emails with some administrators privately, without posting them here? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not share that opinion. Humus sapien's unblock is a very good move. It will help keep the discussions unfragmented. And in any case, cant see what purpose having the blocked users communicate from their talk pages would have served. Sarvagnya 01:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have sent you an email with the evidence. Apart from you, Aksi great and DaGizza have seen the evidence - Nishkid64 is claiming to have seen it, but I don't know as I haven't spoken to him about this issue. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now that I've seen some of the email, I endorse the block of Bakasuprman. Just to be clear, I haven't had much interaction with Bakasuprman, but I have been active on Goa Inquistion, which has been edited by Baka and Hkelkar/Rumpelstiltskin223. I would say that Baka has been uncivil on that article's talk page, and that he and D-Boy have teamed up to avoid the 3RR there. But the main problem with Baka's behavior, and the thing that justifies a substantial block, is his collaboration with a banned user to influence WP articles and harass an administrator. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully endorse Rama's arrow's actions. This attempt to turn Wikipedia into a nationalist battleground is totally unacceptable, especially when users are acting as proxies for banned users. I always tell meatpuppets I block that a meatpuppet is only one step away from a sockpuppet. Khoikhoi 02:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Khoikhoi. Incivility is very unhelpful and harmful to wikipedia. --Aminz 02:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The simple solution is to identify those articles considered contentious, ensure Bakasuprman keeps clear of those articles but let him contribute to others where his energy can be an asset to wikipedia. This could be a good first step to clean up the playground, so to speak.Dineshkannambadi 02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Having been one of those who have seen the evidence but has also witnessed his good contributions to the project, I may support Baka to continue to editing if he is placed on probation/parole for All controversial, religious articles. This means he would not be allowed to touch any article/talk page/AfD relating to Hindutva, Islamic Fundamentalism, Indian caste system etc. except removing obvious vandalism. Even WP:1RR gives him too much lee-way. On these the talk pages, he often made crude remarks towards others instead discussing with them and acheive consensus. On controversial articles, his involvement was always a hinderance, a detriment, never improved the situation. The only problem I see with this proposal is that he still may be in contact with Hkelkar through email and may request Hkelkar to add their POV (with a sock presumably) if he can't. However, from what I've seen, it tends to be the other way around.

Another suggestion s for Baka is to abandon his account and start afresh, if his passion for writing East Indian history is so great and avoid controvsial articles at all costs. Btw, just two days ago Baka welcomed ThLinGan, who has since been confirmed as a Hkelkar sock. His sympathies are still very clear. Gizza^{Chat ©} 04:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I hate to sound stubborn, but probation will not solve anything, nor is it the correct response. In his statement above, Baka has already adamantly stated that he edits and will continue editing on the same lines as Hkelkar. He has been warned, advised, counseled dozens of times by various people, but to no avail. Additionally, he has been subverting Wikipedia - he clearly understands that Kelkar was banned, but continued to collude with him, tried to protect his sockpuppets and attack his "enemies." I'm sorry, but the seriousness of this misconduct is too much to ignore. Baka is obstinate and unwilling to change his attitude. Also, his "positive contributions" are by-and-large on Hinduism and India-related topics - if there are 10-15 articles he should not edit, he can transfer his activities to 10-15 other articles, as there is no shortage of topics on which Hindutva ideology can be imposed. I understand the good faith and willingness to forgive of my colleagues here, but being a very serious offense, I can't see how we can do anything save not have him edit Wikipedia and give him a lot of time to try and clear his head. If he genuinely loves working on Wikipedia, he will find it in himself to return after his block expires. If he is more concerned with Hindutva, he will stay away, which will benefit both parties. Also, re-emerging with another identity is not going to be helpful unless he reflects on his behavior. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 09:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And might I remind, that the block is not aimed to punish Baka, but protect Wikipedia. What is important is Wikipedia and not an individual editor. Look from that angle - what is our obligation to cut Baka some slack? Nothing, if he thinks Wikipedia is a vehicle for his Hindutva beliefs. There is no practical way that the Kelkar cabal can be dismantled without stiff action. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 09:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, a probation may not be effective. We would have reacted much more tolarantly if they openly admitted their past links with Hkelkar before we revealed it. Even then they would have been punished but denying it (and responding aggressively as shown here[40]) hasn't helped their cause at all considering that we have the evidence and have shown it to neutral parties upon request. Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The initial portion of his earlier response (which he removed subsequently) is reproduced here for convenience.

Here are my responses to Rama's Arrow's crusade to defame me. I will not be editing here for a long time while I sort out who double-crossed me and attacked me, and who are the real wikipedians.

When will a person be double-crossed? Praveen 14:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

My run-in with Bakaman ad D-Boy has been very recent and related to only one small issue. However , I feel it is relevant to point this incident out. Both had reverted the change I had made to the Goa Inquisiton page even though I had first put it in the disucssion before making changes. The edit summary I made on both occasions justified the change. However both chose to ignore discussion. I even put a message on their talk pages asking them to justify thier action; but they chose not to because they knew they would not be able to justify it. Hardly any consensus building behavior expected from experienced users such as them. Their presence on WIkipedia has been more about pushing their personal likes/dislikes, than about building an encyclopedia. I will be really glad to see thenm go --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Per Nishkid64's comments above, I believe a 6 month block is excessive, especially given the lack of easily available evidence. Bakasuprman's alignment with a pro-Hkelkar POV seems to hardly be a blockable offense. Also, I'm seeing the word 'meatpuppet' tossed around a lot - hardly seems to match the definition. I'm not denying there are civility problems, POV problems, even some tendentious editing - but this is pretty extreme. I can't see how this has the support of the community, and would much prefer to see a broader discussion rather than a decision made by a handful of admins. – Riana ^ऋ 13:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• 6 months looks like an overkill, and would be something more like a motion passed by arbitrators given the type of evidence. They aren't new accounts either, and have been contributing for a resonable amount of time already. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman's disruptive conduct, tedentious editing and his adamant/vicious defense of Hkelkar's sockpuppets is all on WP evidence. As to the email evidence, it clearly establishes a "meatpuppetry" and collusion between Kelkar and Baka and the others. Btw, what do you expect? Is this a court that one has to qualify if the evidence is admissable? We have to work with what we get. We were lucky that this important piece of evidence came across, or else this group would have continued their activities. Wikipedia is important, not an individual editor so I don't care if the evidence is off-WP, so long as the threat to Wikipedia is detected and removed. A 6-month block is most practical, considering that Hkelkar is perma-banned. Defending and praising his sockpuppetry while colluding with him behind the scenes to subvert Wikipedia is very, very serious. As to the definition of meatpuppetry:

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual.

It is clear that Bakasuprman deserves to be treated on par with Kelkar - however, he is not getting a perma-ban. As he is unrepentant of his collusion, I cannot see any need in cutting him any more slack. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 13:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

They are individual users. Hkelkar created his account on 24th August 2006, Bakasuprman's account was created on 7th July 2006, Dangerous-Boy has his account since gawdknowswhen. The point is, these users have been extensively contributing to Wikipedia since a long time now, have been a part of two ArbCom cases, where there wasn't an inkling of evidence produced that they are one and the same individual, or they have been acting as meatpuppets. Let me make clear, the definition of a "meatpuppet" from WP:SOCK –

"A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion. This is common in deletion discussions or controversial articles. These newly created accounts, or anonymous edits, may be friends of another editor, may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion, or may have been solicited by someone to support a specific angle in a debate. Wikipedians also call such user accounts single-purpose accounts, because whereas committed Wikipedians are usually active on a range of articles, and their aim is to see a balanced growth in articles and in the encyclopedia as a whole, single-purpose accounts come to Wikipedia with one agenda."

Hence the rationale on which these users have been blocked is fundamentally flawed. I repeat, these users are not meatpuppets of each other. Just because two or more users seem to share the same ideology, they cannot be termed as meatpuppets. I can't see you blocking more notorious users on this flimsy reason. I'd like to see the evidence that you have been distributing, and reserve futher comments till I get it through email. Thanks very much. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I must again repeat my full endorsement of Rama's actions, and add that I don't absolutely find an overkill 6 months for Bakasuprman. I have never clashed with the editor in question, but I have repeatedly noted Baka's disruptiveness and vocal contempt for civility. I have also noted his constant and systematic teaming with the other editors in question, as with the previous sock of Hkelkar (i.e. User:Rumpelstiltskin223), in particular in VfD and in the RfC regarding Dbachmann. I'm worried, I must admit, by what seems to me a considerable degree of leniency towards transforming many India-related issues in an ideological battleground, and the damaged caused by this can't be compared to making some DYK.--Aldux 14:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How very nice. The same user you are talking about has not been the most civil of the users either. Now is not the time to make tu quoque arguments, but I have undeleted a page for your perusal, where you can get instant glimpse of dab's incivility, and also engaging into discussions with a permanently banned user on his own talk page. Bakasuprman has been contributing since a long time, and calling him nationalistic and a disruptive user just because he does not conform to your views is all the more disturbing. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be losing the point: I know Dab's manners are far from perfect and I'm not here to defend them. I only mentioned him because for a misterious coincidence in the RfC all the three editors in question compared. As to my pov, how you no it remains a great mystery to me, especially since I don't edit India-related issues, expect when dealing with User:Maleabroad. What I can say is that I have due to a long work in Balkans-related issues a long experience with dealing with natational-cliques in action, and I must say that Baka behaves exactly like the most problematic and disruptive of them. And yes, I repeat that Baka has shown a vocal contempt for WP:CIV as I have rarely seen, repeatedly putting in doubt its sense and its utility on this same board.--Aldux 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bakaman's incivility has been quite unfortunate, and he gets warned for it. We have more difficult editors around. Do they all get blocked for 6 months? This is a punitive block. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No, its to allow the rest of us to build an encyclopaedia. Nick, you simply have not edited controversial pages with Baka. I have had occasion to point out to you before this[41], on the occasions when you have dropped in to the Narendra Modi page to protect it; you really must follow these things more closely in order to determine what the level of incivility and unpleasantness and regular disruptiveness actually is. Hornplease 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You haven't beem the most civil of the users, Hornplease; although I must credit you for your patience which you displayed while editing controversial articles. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea Sir Nick - I believe this un-deleted page is the one with Baka's comment What's your purpose on wikipedia dbachmann? Fighting evil Hindoo heathens?Bakaman 23:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As a retort to dab's comment to Bhadani – [42]. For which you posted him this {{npa3}} warning on Bakaman's talk – [43]; while gently reprimanding dab for the same – [44]. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ostensibly, accusing Dab of anti-Hindu intentions is an accusation of bigotry. With Dab, it was a case of general incivility. Nobody asked Baka to use the words "heathens" or "evil Hindoos." And I believe Bhadani is capable of defending himself. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quite incivil. I also happen to remember one of the more notorious comment made by dab, around a year ago (on India and Indians). Not really worth blocking 6 months, or is it? Also, Bhadani is quite capable and experienced on not letting himself get malaligned or disoriented by a bunch of difficult editors. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I too would like to join Aldux in reiterating my support for this block. Bakasuprman may have been 'contributing for a long time', Nick, but that is not a guarantee of his usefulness, that is actually an admission of our failure.

It isn't that Bakasuprman doesnt conform to my views, or anyone's. Many, many people on WP don't. Baka is the only one who is genuinely a menace in the way that he edits articles; I have had the privilege of observing him since his very first few edits. He has been a problem right from the beginning.

Incidentally, HKelkar edited at first as 'Subhash Bose' and 'Netaji', so he did join before Baka. Shortly before Baka joined, HKelkar did post on another user's talkpage that he was 'mentioning to a few people that they should join' (this is indicative, but hardly conclusive); I could find the diff with a little effort, since I think I alerted BLNguyen at the time .

For context: note the above quoted undeleted page follows the AfD on Hindutva Propaganda, an article started by Dab, and which Bhadani urged the deletion of; there's some history there that I'm not going to repeat, as all concerned should really have gotten over it by now - including those uninvolved, like you, Nick. Hornplease 15:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

As a number of responsible editors and administrators have asked to see the evidence in question, there is a need to release the e-mails in question so that the community may see it and assess the seriousness of what was going on. I do have the consent of several peoples (but not all) who were party to the emails to release the contents. However, I want to make absolutely sure that its OK to do this, so I will wait for a little while. I emphasize that I have absolutely no desire to invade anyone's privacy or break any policy or guideline. My interest is only the preservation of Wikipedia. I also don't want to compromise the good faith and position of those who have chosen to trust my judgment over this case - I wish that all admins be aware of all the facts of this case. To anyone who may be offended or concerned over their privacy, I reiterate that I completely respect that right but as a responsible administrator, I cannot withhold it any more. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to forward me the emails. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that a large number of admins want to see it, and that there will still be a large number who haven't seen it, I might as well release it here. I don't want this confusion to drag on - several have suggested I have no basis to this, which is absolutely wrong. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind you, emails aren't concrete evidence. The users may disown any of the content you might post here. Also, public posting of contents of private emails, is considered discourteous. But it's your call, finally. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If you consider emails not to be concrete evidence, then why are you asking to see it? You might as well choose not to believe anything. Are they concrete when exchanged via email inboxes? And what do you think we are, the police? the courts? Well I'm sorry Sir Nick, but I didn't obtain a warrant first - is that ok, or does that make the evidence inadmissable? And might I remind you that user:Subhash bose was proven a sockpuppet of user:Hkelkar when Aksi great and Blnguyen received emails from the same e-mail address. Shall I un-block them, given the weakness of e-mail based evidence? I have no desire to be rude, but you should understand all this. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hkelkar and Subhash Bose were suspected of being sockpuppets in the past. The case is available here – Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar. The case is quite different with three independent editors whom you are accusing to be meatpuppets. Let me give you an illustration of how dab used admin rollback against User:Freedom skies, on Indian mathematics while being completely uninvolved with the article in the past – [45]. Conniving over emails is not a blockable offence, apparently. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you be a little clearer about this? I don't see the relevance of any of it. Hornplease 16:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And its a little perplexing to me why releasing private e-mails is discourteous when you claim that e-mails aren't concrete evidence and can be disowned. If someone can disown their own emails so easily, what is the problem? Why the required courtesy then? The truth is that e-mail evidence is often vital for Wikipedia administrators to stop various cases of trolls, meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry. Ignoring it would be suicidal. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, then. What are you waiting for? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

there is no need to post it here. You can email it first to whoever expresses a desire to see it. And after that, if people feel that it should be posted here, we can do that. Posting private emails publicly is not an appropriate thing to do. btw, I have seen a part of the evidence(which Gizza mailed me) and nothing that I have seen even remotely implicates Baka of any wrong doing. I asked him for more evidence, he says he doesnt have it/seen it. I've asked another admin and I havent got a reply yet. btw, even the evidence I saw lists many wikipedians and I am sure you're responsible fo their privacies too. Hauling up someone for some wrongdoing is not more important than protecting the privacy of people who gaurd it zealously. Sarvagnya 16:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to remove any personal information from an e-mail(including in the headers, like a source IP) that is not already on wiki before you send it to anyone. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Even then, I dont think it should be put here before getting the overwhelming consent of people who have seen it. The 'evidence' which I was sent, at first look is sensational. But, on a second look, is hardly incriminating or surprising for people who understand the background and are familiar with the users and their battles. Posting it here can even be seen as an attempt to sensationalise the issue and tickle the interest of users who are themselves disinterested or worse, ignorant of the myriad issues involved here to reach objective conclusions. Sarvagnya 16:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

ONce again, special pleading - "familiar with the users and their battles"?. I don't think that controversial India-related articles should continue to have the rules relaxed. I say this, for example, because Bakasuprman has frequently indicated that he feels that incivility is in fact the norm on such articles, frequently quoting a throwaway remark about policing by BLnguyen from months ago as justification. Hornplease 16:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Motion to unblock

I have viewed the evidence, and the mails distributed don't reveal how Bakasuprman was involved in this whole issue. I request a communal imprimatur for an unblock of Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and recommend taking this matter to the Arbitration Committee for further discourse. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, for reasons stated above and summarised: Nirav has my trust; Ambroodey and daGizza have made statements that are perfectly clear; and I have had considerable personal experience of HKelkar and Baka tag-teaming and being disruptive. The block is perfectly within process and it will definitely lead to an improvement in the quality (and manageability) of the project. Hornplease 16:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - in case you haven't noticed, 3 admins who saw the evidence have endorsed the block - Aksi great, DaGizza and Akhilleus. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 16:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Basing myself on what I've heard and know, I certainly oppose the unblock for now; but I would like to see the evidence myself before pronouncing myself definitively.--Aldux 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Support - I was mailed a 'part of' the evidence by Gizza few hours ago. RA says that Gizza has viewed the 'evidence'; I suppose 'complete evidence'. If he has, I fail to understand why he wouldnt mail me the 'complete evidence' but would only mail me part of the evidence in which the 'cabal' apparently makes their distrust of me clear. Releasing such evidence selectively, makes me suspect their intentions and perhaps even the veracity of some of the 'evidence'. I support the motion to unblock. Sarvagnya 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support - There is no clear consensus on the block imposed on User:Bakasuprman. Multiple users, including several admins, have opposed the 6-month block. There is a clear split of opinions on the evidence which is so far hidden on the wiki. Among those who have seen the evidence, few admins have supported the block, while few admins have opposed. While one admin said he has already dismissed the meatpuppetry claims after seeing the evidence, another admin above says, "mails distributed don't reveal how Bakasuprman was involved in this whole issue". Certainly there is no clear consensus. I strongly recommend unblocking the user and to take this issue to Arbitraion committee, and put up the case there by sending the committee members the email evidence. Rest decision whether to impose a new block should be left to ArbCom. - KNM ^Talk 17:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

At the moment I see one admin for the unblocking and five against. That seems a clear majority to me.--Aldux 17:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

one admin? nick is one. nishkid, an admin says he's 'dismissed' the evidence after seeing it. then there's a clear split about the duration of the block. then, i have seen some of the 'evidence' and nothing in it implicates baka even remotely. My repeated requests to send me the complete evidence is being met with silence. dineshkannambadi, a user with nearly a half a dozen FAs, has spoken against the block, which somebody has pointed out is a punitive block. there's clearly no consensus about anything here. Sarvagnya 17:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you and Nick are the only exceptions to a general sense of agreement among informed users. I'd invite you to reconsider in that light. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 18:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

• Oppose unblocking for the reasons I gave a few sections up. Long term POV warrior and Hkelkar supporter. – Steel 17:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Although I haven't directly participated in discussions regarding Baka's block due to some real life issues, I've been passively following the developments in multiple pages. I've worked with Baka in few articles and I should say he has done a marvelous job in betterment of this project. It's good to see that no one here is questioning Baka's commitment in improving articles and making Wiki a better project. As someone else has pointed out a 6 months block is as good as a permaban and demands extraordinary interests from the user to come back and continue contributions in full flow. I strongly support Unblocking Baka, if possible on certain conditions and clauses and may be with a strong warning.Gnanapiti 18:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, most of us have questioned Baka's commitment to the improvement of the WP. You appear to be confusing energy with good faith. Its precisely this sort of thing, where decent users with little or no experience of the actual disruption the problem editor causes who step in to defend them, that worries me. Hornplease 18:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support A lengthy block requires a smoking gun, and it's just not there. Not a single piece of evidence, either a diff, or an email, was produced to back up accusations of meatpuppetry. What instruction did Hkelkar give to Bakasuprman, what edits did Bakasuprman make under these instructions? We don't know. Instead, we have the standard accusations of incivility, POV-pushing, and similar wiki mantras of abuse that fly around by the thousands on talk pages. Sorry, you cannot block an editor, especially for 6 months, based on such considerations. Beit Or 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Question: can the relevant emails not be displayed here? It's a bit much to expect the community to make a decision based on virtually no information. Certainly I can't. If the emails really should be kept fairly private, then please email them to me. Moreschi ^Talk 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment- Hi I am Sbhushan blocked due to this accusation. I have left note at Rama's arrow talk page and an unblock request on my talk page to show that accusation against me is baseless. This is my edit history since I started contributing on Wikipedia [[46]]. Please note that I have not contributed to any article identified as Hindutva, Islamic Fundamentalism, Indian caste system etc. In fact I have no common interest with Hkelker. There is no evidence of me doing any edit based on any instructions Hkelkar might have given me. Rama’s accusation is baseless and I request an opportunity to respond and defend myself. Sbhushan (IP address as I am blocked and no-one is looking at my talk page)198.96.180.245 19:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Hornplease, what do you mean? apart from myself, knm, dinesh and many other users, even Gizza has conceded that Baka has made useful contributions. he has also been incivil. everyone agrees. but then, there is a history to that and is more nuanced. all of us are aware of it. all the more reason for an arbcom. dont assume that we have little or no knowledge of Baka's history. we wouldnt be here otherwise. also you cant have the cake and eat it too. RA says that this block has nothing to do with incivility or perceived disruption and that it is only about meatpuppetry.

As for meatupuppetry, which is what I suppose this block is about, we havent seen any evidence yet. The little evidence that Gizza sent me has absolutely nothing that can implicate Baka of any wrongdoing. And what worries me most is that, in his mail to me, Gizza has said that he himself hasnt seen all the evidence!! RA on the other hand, claims that Gizza has seen the evidence. I am beginning to wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye. Also, while RA says he's prepared to put the evidence here, he hasnt responded to my request to mail it to me. Sarvagnya 19:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose As per Rama's Arrow & Hornplease. Praveen 20:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support In case you forgot, I vocalized my opposition to Bakasuprman's block, last night. I was forwarded the evidence at the time when this AN/I posting was made, and I reviewed it and made a conscientious decision. Six months is too long, and I still don't believe in tying Hkelkar to Bakasuprman like this. Honestly, if Baka had been an administrator, he would have gotten away with all of these things. People here have already said that Dbachmann said a number of hateful things before, but it seems he never got the rap for his actions. I must repeat myself that I have dismissed the email logs, since I don't see any justification for Bakasuprman's block. I'm still advocating a block for incivility, if you're interested. Another thing...you've repeated that you blocked Bakasuprman for being a meatpuppet of Hkelkar, but you've just stated that the same has been happening with Sir Nick. Either don't use the double standard and block Baka, and not Sir Nick for the exact reason...or give up your case to pinpoint a block on Bakasuprman when there appears to be no evidence of what you claim is occurring. Also, I'm one of the few who has not had a history with this user, and I'm speaking from a neutral stance. Many others, I can clearly see, have a personal grudge or dislike Baka and are vocalizing their support for the block here. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You are arguing that people who have grudge against Baka are vocal in their support for blocking him. Same line of argument can made about people who oppose his block. I clearly see people who colluded with Baka in POV pushing are here supporting him. Praveen 21:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to condone Baka's nefarious activities, that is your mistake. Your hypocrisy of allowing Baka to return just b'coz Dab has been incivil is ludicrious. As for Sir Nick - I received it not very long ago, so I still had to go through it and try to understand what was happening. It is indeed sad, and I am basically asking the community to review it properly. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Rama's arrow, I did not say Baka could return just because Dab was incivil. I was merely commenting on the double standard of how Dbachmann never got in trouble for his behavior because he is an administrator. That bit was just part of my rant, and probably has no real relevance to the discussion at hand. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Support to unblock . While I understand the concerns of Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) in being tough on certian issues, I support the motion to unblock Bakasuprman. Let further proceedings to be taken up by ArbCom to decide his participation in certian articles. This will be more democratic. A few emails and any conjectures there in cant be used as ultimate evidence. Arbcom exists to solve such tough issues.Dineshkannambadi 23:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Bakasuprman should be permanently banned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose And the proposer too has a history of being selective with the "group" under consideration. [47]. Haphar 07:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Presentation of evidence

Well, here it is, the first round of evidence - two particularly damning emails exchanged between Bakasuprman and Hkelkar. Please note how Bakasuprman did not want to be part of Hkelkar's "scheme anymore" after I first imposed the blocks. I had sent this first message to user:Akhilleus when he asked to see the evidence 12-15 hours ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rama's Arrow (talk • contribs)

Bakasuprman conspiring with Hkelkar

I don't think I need to, but lemme nevertheless highlight the phrases used by Bakasuprman such as the point is to become indispensible, to cover your tracks, the Hindu cause, Jews are better than Indians anyway, befreind user:Humus sapiens, User:Beit Or, User:Avraham in particular. Once he was blocked, Bakasuprman was quick to blame extenuating circumstances for not wanting to be a part of Hkelkar's scheme anymore - establishing that he was a part of his scheme before he was busted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rama's Arrow (talk • contribs)

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

With a degree of sadness as well as contempt, I must present some evidence I've received that Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is also involved in recruiting meatpuppets and helping Hkelkar and his activities.

Btw, sorry for the haphazard flow - formatting this has been a bitch. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas attempted to thwart DaGizza's efforts to fight Hkelkar and co.

Sir Nicholas leaked an e-mail user:DaGizza had prepared in order to keep a watch on Hkelkar and his cabal's activities at Hinduunity.org forum. DaGizza had communicated this in private to other "trustworthy" admins:

DaGizza's compilations

That my friend Nirav, was a breach of trust. A sick twisted breach of trust indeed. I demand an ArbComm to stop this madness. Gizza is no saint. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 20:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Breach of trust?" Excuse me, but do you have any idea of what the hell was going on here? Do you expect me to do nothing when I find out that Anirudh has been hassling the community by propping up Kelkar, yourself and D-Boy? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably i'm the only one who has a clear idea of what drama was played out here over past 6 months. You more than anybody else know that i have been unwilling participant in this. Nick was always well meaning. You more than anybody else know without me it would have been impossible to chart kelkar's activities on Wiki. I have done what your ArbComms couldnt get Kelkar to stop socking here. Just today i helped u round up last of his socks.

You are essentially destroying the community. Do want me to sing like a canary here. Do want me to tell these ppl how you got Kelkar to collect evidence for your ArbComm ase against Nadirali thru me?

Over past 24 hours i have been subject to threats and counter threats to switch sides. I have been cruelly manipulated, and right now find meself at the centre of feud between two admin factions. Eitherway i know i'll be setup. For fucks sake i was here to write an encyclopedia not indulge in your petty admin politics.

Also accept the fact that as long there will be Wikipedia, cabals will exists. Me, you all of us here are a part of one big hypocrisy that is called NPOV. I reserve my energies for ArbComm. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 21:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not ask for your or Kelkar's help ever - I never condoned that troll's activities. I took all the help I could (mainly just from you, not Kelkar) to fight one set of trolls, but this never meant I was prepared to tolerate Kelkar's crap. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 21:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As if I ever tolerated Kelkar's crap. I grant it that you didnt ask for help. But nevertheless you were aware that Kelkar was helping. Didnt we joke about how that should keep him off his sockpuppeting activities for a while? Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 22:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by AMbroodEY

I'm somebody at the very centre of this whorehouse. I have been the recipient of original emails. As this issue is fast snowballing into a tug-of-war between two admins, both of whom I consider close personal friends (one helped me with University admissions and other is a close ethnic clansmen whom I've known for over a year), I'd reserve my statement and evidence in case of an ArbComm.

I have edited Wikipedia for over two years. I have never been blocked. I also participated in 3 ArbComms. I have been courteous enough to apologise whenever I've made any error in judgement (of all people, dab will vouch on this). But let me tell you guys, today I feel betrayed, i feel violated. Because someone whom i'd always considered a friend, someone whom I had offered to nominate for Adminship, Someone whose RfA i strongly supported wanted me perma banned for my convictions. Someone who by his own admission encountered my beliefs only over the internet, thought that I consorted with the braindead prats who throng Hindu Unity.

Its bit rich of Girik to ban Bakasuprman for allegedly acting as a meatpuppet of Kelkar when he himself knew about Kelkar's sockpuppetry from the outset [48]. Why dont you tell these good people Girik, about how you asked Kelkar for help thru me recently. Have you added this email to your 'evidence'? I think not...

Note: Desigeek111 is Hkelkar's pseudonym. His acc i believe used email <e-mail address redacted>. Here is the self styled defender of NPOV (DaGizza, who concern for NPOV interestingly wasnt visible during Nadirali fiasco) asking me to ask Kelkar for help in case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindutva_propaganda resolved in keep. Interestingly DaGizza voted merge. D-Boy for all his idiocy, lack of elaborateness and shoot-from-the-hip-style was right sometimes i does take balls to speak your mind.

As much as i abhor D-Boy's Hindu Unity antics, Brahminist bullshit that Baka spouts every now and then, i find two-facedness and hypocrisy more disgusting on par with Hkelkar's neurotic activities.

If this goes to ArbComm i will present everything i have. I only demand that this evidence is only seen by Arbitrators as i believe stuff i know is too shocking, too damaging to the community. I dont mind if the Committee finds it appropriate to block me for my un-orthodox actions. I emphasize i have always acted in the best interests of Wikipedia. I have always placed Wikipedia above my POV. I could have easily saved my hide and cut a deal, but my conscience tells me otherwise. सत्यमेव जयले Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 19:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock and take this to arbcom

From what we're seeing unfold, I think that it is becoming clear that there is more to this than meets the eye. this is out and out arbcom stuff. I think, RA has blundered in singling out few users for unilateral action. I demand that all the blocked users be unblocked and the matter be taken to Arbcom. There are several questions that these revelations raise and all of them cannot be discussed here. I will reserve my comments for an arbcom.

For now, I request that users be discerning enough to note that there are two issues here -

1. Allegations of POV pushing
2. Allegations of meatpuppetry

The first one is not news and is as stale as stale can get. We dont need a sting operation and sensationalised revelations to tell us that. The second, prima facie is falsifiable and looks to be full of conjecture and convenient conclusions. This case is crying for Arbcom intervention and a closer examination of the 'evidence' by a larger group of wikipedians. I honestly feel that RA has jumped the gun and that Baka has genuine reasons to feel victimised. I request a neutral admin to unblock everyone and haul all of them and the admins involved over to arbcom. Sarvagnya 21:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman's guilt is self-evident, as is the involvement of Sir Nick in these proceedings. There is nothing to justify Baka's "victimisation." His complicity with Kelkar has been clearly exposed. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 21:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman's guilt is not self-evident to me even after reading the emails. Maybe some additional explanation and background were necessary, but these were not provided. Beit Or 21:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And, dear Sarvagnya, don't try to distract the debate like you tried above with your lecture on Dab's incivility. Anyone who can read and understand English knows that Baka's guilt has been established clearly. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 21:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman's guilt has been established no more clearly than dagizza's or nick's or amey's or anyone on that list for that matter. It can be argued that everyone on that mailing list are conspirators. But no. If you want me to believe that this is the only mailing list going around on wikipedia, I can only once again, ask you to not act so naive.

The crux of your block is meatpuppetry. People talk a hundred things in the privacy of their bedrooms and mailing lists. You still have not established that they acted upon hkelkar's advice. For example, hkelkar advises that .."a case can be made that dab recruits trolls.....". That is the only explicit 'order' that he gives in the mail trail. Can you show me that the blocked users acted upon that advice? Or any other advice of kelkar's? Can you show me the diffs? Simply 'catching' users on the same mail chain as a banned user is not meatpuppetry. Sorry. Sarvagnya 21:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Where are the diffs supporting the accusation of meatpuppetry? Beit Or 21:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What diffs would you like? the one where Bakasuprman explicitly calls someone part of Dab's 'army of trolls'? The one where he notes that I am 'carrying out the dictates of banned Pakistani trolls?' This is truly extraordinary. Hornplease 21:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding yourself to think that Baka needs ideas from somebody else to say those things. huh. Sarvagnya 22:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully endorse taking this case to the ArbCom. The matter is too complicated, too controversial, too damaging, and too wide-ranging to be resolved on this board. Beit Or 21:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that while I approve of an arbcom investigation into the actions of certain admins who seem to be involved in this nonsense, I see nothing here that indicates that the original banning of Bakasuprman needed to be taken to arbcom. The community shoots itself in the foot once again. I am disappointed, but unsurprised. Hornplease 21:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Rama's arrow just filed an ArbCom case. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rama and others, please move the case to ArbCom. And stop this here. First, the whole thing is very damaging. And it's not going to end soon. Please everyone try to stay cool, and move this. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have redacted numerous e-mail addresses from this entire thread. There is no reason for these to be posted on-wiki. In the unlikely event that an arbitrator or other editor genuinely needs to verify such an address, it can be retrieved from the page history. This is not an endorsement of any other material that was or wasn't posted or a comment on the merits of the dispute. Newyorkbrad 01:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking that a step further and removing the e-mail contents. They constitute private correspondence, and should not have been posted here. The case has been referred to ArbCom; should it be accepted for RfAr, further evidence can be cited there. -- Samir 03:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And I disown all the juvenile bullshit RA posted against me. He has conveniently made it up. I have repeat backlog exams and project submissions due in a few days, only because I was busy reverting vandal edits at the night before the exams. So, if I may be excused for a few days, I will come back with solid and provable on-wiki evidence against Rama's Arrow and his nationalistic edits, bias against Pakistani editors, abuse of admin tools by blocking those involved in disputes with him, and the recent wheel-war with Humus sapiens. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 06:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone archive this section? Otherwise counter-charges, allegations, etc. will continue to be posted here. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, please, before I expire of confusion. As far as I can tell, two admins are accusing each other of an anti-Pakistani POV. Hornplease 06:50, 25 April 2007 (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.

Rachel Brown

I vaguely remember hearing that name before. I received a fourteen-page-long e-mail from one BlackTeller regarding alleged sockpuppetry by Rachel Brown, with the request that I post it on this board. Did anyone else receive something similar? Could anyone familiar with RB inform me if such a post would be useful here? >Radiant< 07:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Did the fourteen page email actually contain any evidence? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It establishes a pattern of similarity in editing style as well as xFD/RFA !voting habits, as well as a lack of overlap in editing times, of three accounts and one IP. I suppose that counts as tangential evidence. The link towards Rachel is somewhat tenuous. >Radiant< 09:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

She hasn't edited in more than a year, unless she is using sockpuppets and just hasn't touched her main account. hbdragon88 23:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This talk discussion yields interesting stuff. Four accounts were blocked after a CheckUser, but they were all later unblocked due to a "lack of evidence." hbdragon88 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I got an email after putting a not_a_ballot message on Category:Jewish figure skaters saying that there are potential meatpuppets/sockpuppets participating in recent cfds on Jewish topics. It turns out this was true in part.

Supposedly, users have been leaving messages on each other's talk pages (or possibly emailing each other) in order to recruit their vote for those cfds. Specifically, User:Epeefleche was spamming user's talk pages with requests that they save "Jewish athlete categories" nominated for deletion. He did this before with categories such as Category:Jewish fencers. One of the userpages he spammed was User:Londoneye, who according to that link was previously blocked as a sockpuppet of Rachel_Brown, with a suspicious message of "Hello, I know this has interested you in the past" [49]. Though Londoneye didn't vote on the category, he/she did interestingly request for User:Epeefleche's email address [50]. And although Londoneye didn't vote, another suspected sockpuppet of Rachel_Brown DID vote on three recent cfds: User:Newport. ([51], [52], [53])

There are other discussions here: [54].

The type of vote fraud described in the past discussions of Rachel_Brown are very similar to the type of vote recruitment and email messaging that is apparently happening now. I had suspected meatpuppetry involved in some of these cfds even before the email, and I wouldn't go past saying sockpuppetry could be involved too in some way.

If these allegations are true, given that Rachel_Brown was accused of sockpuppetry in the past and accused specifically of vote fraud using these previously-blocked suspected sockpuppets (User:Londoneye, User:Poetlister, User:Taxwoman), it is unlikely she/he would be foolish enough to continue the vote fraud under all of the same usernames.

So it is reasonable to say there might be other usernames. I do recommend this be investigated. Bulldog123 07:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wish this hadn't cropped up again but, if anyone wants to investigate, these may be relevant [55], [56]. I made one of the contributions. Thincat 11:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it odd that some of those users in the aforementioned discussions (Arniep, Mistress Selina Kyle, Zordrac) who were arguing for the unblocking of the Rachel Brown alleged sockpuppets are themselves now blocked indefinitely. The alleged puppet accounts seem somewhat connected, with suspicious statements placed with a seeming intent to dissuade suspicion (for example, User:Taxwoman's contributions articles (User:Taxwoman/articles) includes a link that writes: "Watford tube station (with photos, but not mine)". A little odd how she stressed the photo is not hers. Most people wouldn't even feel the need to mention it. Of course, when you realize that User:Londoneye is well known to provide pictures of local tube stations like that, it makes sense why she would feel the need to stress it wasn't her picture...definitely peculiar). Feydakin 05:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it matters whether they actually were sockpuppets or just meatpuppets. Vote recruitment using friends is just as bad as sockpuppetry voting. Unless the information Radiant! has shows recent (meaning within this year or ideally this month) examples of such activity using sockpuppets or meatpuppets, there is no use in bringing back a year old discussion. That doesn't solve anything. Can Radiant! share anything that might be of use?

But to be the Devil's advocate, if they were just meatpuppets, they seemed to have timed their contributions to be in sync. This is output from my sorting algorithm, in which I input the contribution summaries of all four of Rachel_Brown's alleged sockpuppets from January 1, 2007 to today: [57]. This, I suppose, does back up what Radiant! mentioned: that there doesn't seem to be any overlap in editing times whatosever. The great similarity in which all their usepages look (or once looked) is something I found very interesting. [58], [59], [60], [61] At some point in time, all the userpages had a photo of "themselves" and a link to either an edit counter showing their edit count or to some page of their contributions (invariably written as "Some articles I've been involved with" or "a link to my contributions" etcetera). To me, this looks a lot like someone was trying too hard to make the userpages look like different people with different personalities (interests) without realizing they were organizing the userpages pretty much identically. My guess: these people actually do exist separately in real life and maybe they are friends, but only one of them actually edits wikipedia, and she/he splits up their interests among the usernames. This alone would be excusable since sockpuppets that are used only to concentrate interests are allowed, but the effort put into making them look like separate people and then using them in that way is inappropriate. Again, unless there's recent evidence of such activity, there is absolutely no point in opening the safe. Bulldog123 08:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:DE, WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS and WP:NPA violations by User:69.141.30.12

WP:DE and WP:CIVIL

In spite of having been blocked for two weeks for sock puppetry (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BlowingSmoke), User:69.141.30.12, alias BlowingSmoke, Moderation and EtaKooramNahSmech, to list the established sock puppets of User:69.141.30.12, does not seem to have understood the warning message and has reverted to his disruptive and malevolent editing. He has simply shifted his activity from the article on Passive smoking to the article on Smoking bans.

In the Passive smoking article, he made repeated attempts to remove the notion of causation linking passive smoking to diseases, running against the consensus of the long time editors of the article (this is well documented in Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BlowingSmoke). He is now doing the same thing, attacking this time the Smoking bans article, deleting a relevant reference and altering the text to throw doubt on the notion of causation:

• 20:15, 13 April 2007
• 10:59, 14 April 2007
• 08:58, 17 April 2008
• 22:33, 17 April 2007
• 20:15, 18 April 2007
• 06:15, 19 April 2007
• 15:20, 22 April 2007
• 21:41, 22 April 2007
• 02:53, 23 April 2007
• 17:22, 23 April 2007

His edits were reverted by several editors, including myself.

WP:HARASS and WP:NPA

User:69.141.30.12 then made an attempt to harass me. He posted a threatening (unsigned) message on my Talk page, accusing me of "repeated violations of the Wikipedia policy" and of having "hatred" for smokers:

• 02:59, 23 April 2007

My personal policy is to ignore such messages, and I simply deleted it from my Talk page. Nevertheless, User:69.141.30.12 came back to my Talk page and undid my deletion of his threatening message:

• 17:22, 23 April 2007

This is a clear violation of WP:HARASS (See User space harassment).

Could you please do something to stop User:69.141.30.12's malevolent activities, as they are highly disruptive, they waste every other editor's time, and they are totally counterproductive. --Dessources 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User Dessources has claimed ownership smoking ban article, reverting any changes which disagree with his anti-smoking point of view, which is clearly stated on his talk page. User talk: Dessources Is it not clear if the views are his own, or this of his meatpuppet, Nmg20

• [[62]]

Dessources has disregarded the following policies to retain control of these articles: WP:OWN Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version, stable or not.

• 18:56, 23 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Smoking ban (Undid revision 125225649 by 69.141.30.12 (talk) Restore to original, consensual version) [[63]]
• 23:20, 22 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Smoking ban (→Rationale - Rv unjustified mass deletion and changes) [[64]]

All diffs below qualify, as well.

WP:CIV:

Judgmental tone in edit summaries :

• 10:06, 23 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Smoking ban (Undid revision 125046223 by 69.141.30.12 (talk) Rv obstinate amd illusory attempts by same person to inject POV) [[65]]

Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (cite as WP:CIV#ICA)

• 10:55, 17 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Smoking ban (Undid revision 123482202 by 69.141.30.12 (talk) Rv - Blowingsmoke is back with his POV edits!) [[66]]

Removal or properly cited passages, in violation of WP:VERIFY "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"

• 09:07, 19 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Smoking ban (Undid revision 124018690 by 69.141.30.12 (talk) False and anecdotal evidence)
• 10:59, 17 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Smoking ban (Undid revision 123481800 by 69.141.30.12 (talk) Citation is clearly unscientfic and unsufficient - mostly anecdotal)
• 01:15, 11 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Smoking ban (→Effects on businesses - Delete false statement: polls done prior to the ban showed that it enjoyed wide popular support)

He refers to requests that he refrain from violating WP: NPOV as "threats." He reverts good-faith attempts to neutralize the article, characterizing the edit as "vandalism," "malevolent" and "attacks."

• [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smoking_ban&diff=prev&oldid=123922408
• [[67]]

Such imflammatory langauge inhibits reasonable discourse, and is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL I have never ciriticized Dessources in any way, other than the quality of his edits.

In contrast, he has accused me of threats, vandalism, sock puppetry (I display my IP address specifically to avoid this tactic), and has reverted every single edit good-faith I have made to the article.

I imagine this type of harrassment allows him to keep control of the articles, which is clearly not acceptable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.30.12 (talk • contribs).

I am not User:Dessources "meat puppet" (whatever that is; I presume he means "sock puppet"); we have in the past had arguments about aspects of the passive smoking page [68], and the edit history for that article reveals that we spent some time undoing one another's edits.

Unlike in the current situation, however, we reached an accord - User:69.141.30.12 refuses to do so despite a complete lack of support for his views. He also continues to ignore Wikipedia policy as Dessources has already outlined, and frankly it annoys me that I spend more time reverting his edits than I do working on new articles.

Regarding his tone, he has posted in the past using "we" instead of "I" [69] in an attempt to give his views more credibility, has deliberately ignored my repeated links to the Wikipedia policies he was breaching in the same section of that talk page, he continues to accuse me of "sanitising" articles to my own ends ("You state as the only grounds for its exclusion that there are no similar references used in the article, which is no surprise, as you insist on removing them"), refuses to sign talk posts ("Stop demanding that we sign our posts. We choose not to."), and has resorted to some pretty schoolyard comments ("I commend your decision to end an argument that you have lost."), albeit one that I admit I reacted badly to.

Really that thread is all you need to look at for evidence of the problem here - three separate users have explicitly disagreed with his views, and not one agrees with him, yet he continues to change the article and attempt to provoke a reaction on the talk page. I support what Dessources has said above. Nmg20 19:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

By way of follow-up, the Smoking ban article has been edited 40-odd times since yesterday (23rd April) morning, with the upshot of those edits currently standing at a change of 34 states to 35, and the addition of a link which has been disputed for weeks. The rest are almost all reverts of the same stuff User:69.141.30.12 has been championing on his own.

User:69.141.30.12's edits have been reverted by User:Dessources, User:Sigma 7 (who has an extensive edit history outside the page), and would have been reverted by me had others not got there first. In addition, User:John Quiggin has expressed his support for my objections on the use of ACSH as a source [70].

It would be great if we could get on with doing something constructive here rather than constantly having to revert destructive edits from one individual. Nmg20 19:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You can find the definition of a meatpuppet at WP:MEAT

I have not accused you of santitizing any article. I submit that you and your counterpart, Dessources, conspire to bias certain articles toward an anti-smoking POV.

You have admitting reverting all my edits, without consideration or discussion. You and your counterpart have also revert every edit by every user who posts anything to support the other side of the debate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.30.12 (talk • contribs).

As further evidence of User:69.141.30.12 harassment practices against me, he has made an attempt to add my account to the list of suspected sock puppets, without any justification. See [71]. His attempt was immediately turned down by User:Jaynestown and then was confirmed by User:Rklawton.

--Dessources 09:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A filthy propagandist vs. WP:NOT

I've just blocked this propagandist who has been spreading hate speech at Talk:Islamofascism in the form of forum discussions in opposition to WP:NOT. I had alarmed them before but i received a filthy message instead on my talk page before blocking the account. Can someone please review that if possible? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but I think you might have overreacted a wee bit. However, I found the claim that Islam was the only religion to have killed people very amusing. JuJube 09:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• According to them, i am a plain killer. Does that mean that i like listening to Killing Time (Massacre album)?-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We block people for that sort of nonsense all the time. Calling a huge ethnic group a bunch of killers and fascists is well over the line. Can say I approve of the label "filthy propagandist", it is best not to insult even the people we block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Muslims are not an "ethnic group", but a "religious group". Muslims can be found in all ethnicities. Corvus cornix 20:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I just wanted to comment that, whatever the editor you have commented on has done, FayssalF, I would like to think that no one deserves to be referred to as a "filthy propagandist" and, frankly, am shocked by such word usage. Regards, Iamunknown 18:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry about that. I know it was a moment when i was feeling really bad. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't hold it against you. I understand that things get heated. I felt like expressing my opinion nonetheless. Maybe I shouldn't have addressed it to you, but instead I should have posed my opinion in general. My apologies for putting you in what I would consider an uncomfortable situation. --Iamunknown 23:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh no. I appreciate your comments of course. My motto is "Just Wiki me up ® and correct me if I am wrong." -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Abuse on user page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Splash15hotel

Someone has been posting abusive comments on my talk- can something be done?

• It seems to have been 86.12.228.155 (talk · contribs) doing the harassing... I have blocked the IP for making personal attacks. --W.marsh 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah you can remove that harassing comment from your user talk page if you want. --W.marsh 15:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Further (very) abusive attacks were directed at me today, but reverted by someone else. They are viewable thru the last edit made by this IP on my talk. If he has been banned how is he still doing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splash15hotel (talk • contribs)
      • The person did it after the 24h block expired. A new block is in place now. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at RFA

Could I get a ruling as to whether this edit to an RFA was disruption?

Assuming the edit was disruption, how long would the block be? And what do I need to do to make sure I don't get my ISP's /16 or my company's /19 address blocked?

No cups of tea will be necessary in this discussion, though another beverage would be appropriate. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that would considered disruption or something for which a block (which would be preventative, not punitive) would be imposed. He or she is certainly expressing his or her opinion strongly but it seems to be relatively polite given the editor's strong emotions and viewpoint. RfAs are meant to be discussions and those comments seem to be discussion to me. -ElKevbo 18:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not disruption, just a bit irrelevant. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not even irrelevant... Questioning someone else's opposition spree at RfA is hardly irrelevant, and it's certainly not "disruptive". Confrontational, yes, but sometimes it's almost unaviodable when someone has to take the fall and say what needs to be said. Grandmasterka 23:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone report themselves to AN/I before. Acalamari 23:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not disruptive and not remotely blockable. Sorry to disappoint. ;) Sarah 11:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hundreds of copyvios - need help cleaning up

Someone has added hundreds of links to copies of Stargate SG-1 screenplays hosted at media.dave.tv (see [72]). This is plainly a copyvio; unfortunately there are over 250 of the things now linked from Wikipedia. Would it be possible for someone to knock up a script to edit them out en masse? -- ChrisO 18:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

try wikiproject spam, they specialize in this sort of thing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

technically its not a copyvio, wikipedia isnt hosting the information. Do agree it should go, though. -M^ask? 01:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently linking to copyvios is out (WP:EL; a guideline but presumably reflecting a policy on that point?) Notinasnaid 16:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Official policy is WP:COPYRIGHT#Linking to copyrighted works. Phony Saint 16:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hidden notes interlaced into article edit page on Pimp My Ride; possible threats??

Interlaced into the article Pimp My Ride, I noticed that their are "notes." I copied them here for highlight:

On the first line to US Version =

• <!---- Please do not link one of the cars that are not shown in this article ---->

Right after Season 4 line =

• <!--- Do not link vehicles that has no articles, such as the Chevrolet Panel Van. Any ridiculous edits such as linking fictioal vehicles will result a 2 week block. --->

Embedded into Season 6 =

• <!---- Do not link the vehicle names without first putting the car owner's name and the vehicle's year. Also, do not link vehicles that has no articles. Any unsourced edits such as adding ridiculous episodes that was not aired will cause either anonymous or newly registered users will result a 4 month block. ---->

Are these acceptable in the article? The first one is confusing, the second one and third one have threats of blocking by someone who is not an administrator and seems to be extremely protective of the article given their edit history. I didn't notice them before I made a few edits and when I went back to do somemore cleanup, I then noticed the "notes." --293.xx.xxx.xx 00:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not, especially the "block" section. The editor who placed these notices has no authority to block anyone for doing these things, unless they did it repeatedly, and the editor was an admin. Feel free to remove them, as their only purpose will be to frighten off users. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 00:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And what of the user himself? All he's gonna do is revert my edits and it might turn into an ugly 3RR debacle.--293.xx.xxx.xx 00:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Discouraging editing and mandating "rules" like that is not in the spirit of WP. I'm going to remove them - Alison ☺ 00:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Already done by user: Kzrulzuall - Alison ☺ 00:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can think of circumstances where hidden comments, if they are conservative in quantity and in tone, are appropriate (see Jesus). I am unsure why they are justified here. --Iamunknown 00:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It was in fact Professional Gamer who added the threats (at least one) see this April 21 edit. WP:OWN-violating HTML comments in that article though go back for months. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with HTML comments per se. These are clearly unacceptable of course because of the baseless threats of blocking. --kingboyk 00:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think they become a problem when they become a replacement for message on the talk-page... as I've seen often happen. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It really depends on how often the same thing happens. A great example is December 25 - practically every anon who stumbles on that page sees the list of births and thinks it's either correct or funny to add Jesus. So at some point someone added an invisible note asking people not to add Jesus. I have no idea if the anons actually follow the note, but it does inform a serious editor who stumbles on that edit that it's okay to revert and warn. But I agree that the threat of immediate blocking is excessively harsh. Natalie 04:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There is also the fact that comments on the talk page can get archived and thus a consensus may not be easily seen. Also I'm currently using them to try and get the attention of an anon. They edit from a different IP every day and do quite a bit of good work but also add a lot of redlinked categories and put redirects into categories which have to be cleaned up. Because they use different IPs they may never see the message and may not see the edit summary. So a message in the article may get their attention. Most of the date articles have hidden notes asking editors not to add redlinked names to births and death, not just Jesus. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd say that hidden messages may be used, if there is a extremely good reason (persistent additions, disputes etc.), and if they do not contain any threats or negative comments. A talk message referring to the discussion of controversial changes should be allowed, as opposed to threatening to block someone over it. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Nitraven copyright issue

Nitraven (talk · contribs) has been warned multiple times in the past regarding copyright issues, must recently on the 18th of April. Yesterday, Nitraven created two more blatant copy-and-paste articles. I initially posted a notice about this user at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive83#Help_tracking_down_copyright_violations and thought I had handled the situation after going through all of the users previous page creations, removing the copyright violations or requesting speedy deletes for articles that were entirely copyright violations. I thought that would be the end of it after very specific warnings were given, but yesterday, the articles Sri Lanka Artillery and Sri Lanka Armoured Corps were created, lifted almost directly from [73] and [74]. Sancho 06:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Copyright violations should be taken as a very serious offense, and I will not be hesitant on applying an indefinite block if this behavior will continue. Michaelas¹⁰ 08:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.Sancho 14:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently blocked user still able to edit

Not sure how or why, but Dhimwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be able to edit while supposedly blocked. Andy Mabbett 09:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A blocked user can still edit their own talk page. (for requesting an unblock)

It looks like a protected template was added to the page, but the page was never actually protected. --OnoremDil 09:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was the latter I was thinking of. Is the most recent edit acceptable (removal of warnings/ block notices and replacement by allegations of harrasment)? Should the protection of that page me made real? Andy Mabbett 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The page was protected, the protection has expired. No comment on whether an editor is allowed to remove warnings. – Riana ^ऋ 09:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User 212.88.34.124

Resolved

 – editor blocked - Alison ☺

This user has been given a last warning by Riana on the 23 April but is still vandalising. See edit to Oscar Wilde today. Natalie West 12:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Report to WP:AIV please :) – Riana ^ऋ 12:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism - antisemitism

My userpage was vandalised - see [75]. Lpwq-55 (talk · contribs) put there picture with incription, that mean "Jew is our enemy". --Daniel Baránek 13:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite a severe translation, I've warned for userpage vandalism, which I feel is quite sufficient as it is only the users first edit. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of blocked users' Talk postings

In general, is it permissible to remove postings by blocked users, including sockpuppets, from article Talk pages solely because they were posted by those users prior to being blocked? --ElKevbo 13:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally, no. If the user is banned instead of merely blocked, there may be justification for removing posts. Though there is no clear consensus on the issue, if the talk posts are personal attacks they can probably be safely removed. Finally, some talk page posts are pure vandalism, disruption, or trolling, and can be removed or reverted. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Only edits made between being blocked and unblocked can be removed. See also Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Evasion of blocks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible sock/meat activity on wrestling-related articles

I was going through the new account log in search of positive contributors to greet, and I noticed what seems to be a series of throwaway accounts created for the purpose of removing information from wrestling-related articles. These accounts (all created within a few minutes of each other) make one edit, which involves the removal of a few lines' worth of information. None of them seem that odd by themselves, but taken together, I think they might be working as part of some kind of organized campaign.

The ones I've spotted so far:

• Slovenian WPE (talk · contribs)
• LWOfan6 (talk · contribs)
• Mikeyoha (talk · contribs)
• ACroven (talk · contribs)
• Pimpleless buzzard (talk · contribs)
• RCreilly (talk · contribs)
• LTaylorWM (talk · contribs)
• Reg swiinger (talk · contribs)
• Kruel Stripper (talk · contribs)
• EZmoneytites (talk · contribs)
• Hipflowter (talk · contribs)
• Laughingcras (talk · contribs)
• Kerach the Monster (talk · contribs)
• Hot Dogg Bunn (talk · contribs)
• Hardyboy44 (talk · contribs)
• Abss01 (talk · contribs)

There are probably more; those are just the ones I spotted in a coarse inital sweep.

Anyone have any idea what's going on here? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I should note that I don't see anything obviously wrong with the edits themselves, but the manner in which they're being made just seems odd. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JB196 is rather relevant here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have The Tools; how should this be dealt with? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me get the admin who's been handling this. Probably time to go to CheckUser (again) SirFozzie 15:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, in the mean time, time to be the R part of WP:RBI. SirFozzie 15:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) No problem, it's become depressingly normal to clean up after JB. SirFozzie 15:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• No need for a checkuser... these are pretty obvious JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) puppets. I've blocked them though I don't have time to revert all of the articles per WP:DENY at the moment.--Isotope23 15:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know that I caught them all, though, and a CU might help turn up any that I missed. Still, it's your call. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• The only reason I was asking for a checkuser, is, I'm pretty sure JB's IP is currently rangeblocked, and was hoping to catch the open proxy he's been using. I took care of the Deny part for you. Thanks SirFozzie

Ah in that case, an IP check might be helpful to turn up any sleepers and OP's--Isotope23 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

He's started up again. Just noticed the following:

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

-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Took care of it.. if you see any more that you're fairly sure are JBSocks, go ahead and revert them, and add it to the WP:RFCU I've started. (in the IP Check section). Will still need an admin to block the socks as they pop up, but hopefully, we can get a CU to shut down the proxies he's using. SirFozzie 18:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet, vandalism and 3RR violations for User:Hughey, also IP User:164.156.231.55

Resolved— coelacan — 16:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

On the Al Franken page we have one editor and an IP (they edit the same articles) who continue to put in unsourced POV statements into the article, with a citation that doesn't support those statements. The User has been warned, and it's now just vandalism. Can you please put a block in? They have already violated the 3RR rule to put these statements in, and been warned several times. He removes warnings from his Talk page. It is User:Hughey. --David Shankbone 15:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Sockpuppetry was inadvertent. Anyone can see that I simply did not sign in and that the result was to show my IP address instead of my username. Had I signed on with another username that would be a different thing. This is an ongoing situation between myself and two other editors. I have not vandalized that article, I am only reverting back to an original article that I did not even write. The article seemed to have been properly cited and was not NPOV. I have left properly worded on warnings on my Talk page. Hughey 16:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

New user, had not been warned for 3RR before. Further reverts will result in a block, but we'll call this resolved for now. — coelacan — 16:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing, possible disruption, possible deletion required

I've been helping out a user who asked for assistance at the Village Pump on DeVry University. I've done my best for the article but I am more of a fixer than an adder to articles. Nevertheless, User:Codeplowed appears to have unusual activity. I've done my best to assume good faith here, but he has been doing things that seem to be quite strange. His first edit was to introduce criticism to the article, and he appears to be a single-purpose account only editing that article. He appears to want a large amount of criticism in the article ([76]). Not to mention harassment ([77], [78], etc.).

When I gave him a rough equivalent of {{uw-npa2}} with a little good faith as a warning for it (those and calling people "WikiImpostor"), but I was met with "stupidity out of my talk page". When I tried to give him a little bit of guidance on {{Talkheader}}'s usage, I was met with a revert calling me a Digimon (Digimon, I've been editing these over the past few years but I still know very little about it). Then when I told him not to call me names and notified him of some of my changes he might have missed, I got a riddle: "Just looking into verifiable facts: Digimon is all that is fantasy: it is not a person, it the creation of fantasy this entry is about actual families and their children and their future: Facts" - I only ended up deducing I was a fantasy of some sort. In all these conversations, he removed my comments from the talk page.

Then I think there are bad faith assumptions ("reverting: Check for official information, as interpreted otherwise, Harrasment was done by what it seems now many users/employeers of DeVry do not put yoursel at stake by vandals") and a reluctance to remove {{advertising}} from the article's header (the lack of links on the page makes it sound weird)... Could I get some feedback on how to approach him? x42bn6 Talk 23:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have to say, calling someone a "Digimon" is a new one on me. I think next time I get in an argument with someone I'll call them a Duel Monster. ^_^ JuJube 00:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Could I get some assistance? Talk:DeVry University and its history (see User:Codeplowed's contributions. He is soapboxing the talk page putting views forward like:

BE BOLD and edit your own behavior, become neutral and better yet objective, weight the evidence do not fabricated the entry for your interests and selfish gains, like keeping your job or feeding your children without concern of all the harm that your actions and decisions are making in the life of our nation, many people that are our real ans infiltrated enemies[yours and mine and of your children] are helping you because they believe that our system does not work, in this regard they seem to be aiding you and working for/with you but only because their real aim and wants is to destroy our way of living and our reasons and values, our Freedoms and our future minds. By giving false promises, making money out of mediocre and obsolete ans inapplicable knowledge you are hurting our country and it is not the way for our future.

Does this violate WP:CIVIL?

The battleground is the REAL-life of thousands of people that have been victimized by DeVry and are or have been Victims of DeVry and you are part of it by interpreting facts as protecting this malady entitled DeVry Inc. It like protecting Hitler or working for an Institution that enslave people in the sense that you are doing wrong by receiving payments for a system that is causing harm and committing atrocities. What is worst is that you seem not to have the guts to recognize it. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems, to adapt to new situations, DeVry Inc. has taught you to use treachery instead, it seems, nothing to do with manners of well-intentioned individuals, you have exhibited your behavior in here and is documented, yes you can archive it but you can not erased, there are many backups of it, however you can still quit.

And this?

I think he is one of the people who has an agenda against this University. It doesn't fall under WP:COI but I feel this makes him one of the editors that should not be editing the article so aggressively. Help? Thanks. x42bn6 Talk 18:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added the article to my watchlist and I'll participate after I have looked around a while and learned the background, players, etc. It certainly appears to be a messy talk page and the article could certainly use some help but it's not too bad. Codeplowed's extremely long and dense comments on the Talk page are difficult to read and appear to wander off-topic quite a bit but I'm not sure that's a capital offense. --ElKevbo 18:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Codeplowed has also been switching between using his logged-in account and his IP, 24.90.244.160. The only abuse in the past was writing Talk pages in the third person, but I'd consider the recent post on User talk:Mysteryquest sockpuppeting. Vagary 18:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There now appears to be a non-anonymous puppet: User:DiogenesRex Vagary 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Earlier he (well, I'm assuming it's the same person) posted to the conflict of interest noticeboard at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard -- kind of like the equivalent of a change of venue? Should we post links there to the discussions on this board to fill in anyone reading the post on the other board? OtterZero 20:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Related Incident report below: #Disruptive? Perhaps they should be combined into one report? --Parzival418 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User will not stop "fixing" other users' talk page posts

Bart Versieck (talk · contribs) has been warned many, many times, and blocked once already (and very recently) for this, but simply will not stop. Just a day or so after the block expired, he was right back at it, despite repeated promises to stop (or to "try to" stop, whatever that means). I suggest that a considerably more extended block may be in order. User claims it's an obsessive-compulsive disorder problem, but this not plausible as user has been on WP since 2005 but only started doing this last month. User has a very curious history of making good edits and almost as many disruptive ones; his talk page is piled to the metaphorical ceiling with complaints and warnings about almost every conceivable editing transgression, and his responses are uniformly either hostile or mock-obsequious, yet he's also got a number of kudos messages posted to him, and before I was aware of his disruption problems, I'd considered giving him a minor barnstar for some good editing work! See User talk:Bart Versieck#Perpetual problem with editing others posts after many warnings and promises to not do so for consolidated a meta-thread about this editing problem (or this history page if that consolidation has been reverted by the time this is addressed. I thought about filing this at WP:AIV, but this seems more a WP:DE than WP:VANDAL issue, per se. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please correct your post on his talk page from 1995 to 2005 or whenever he started (ahh, I'm getting OCD! :)) Anyway, although psychological issues are not a laughing matter when they are true and Wikipedia may be tolerant, however, Wikipedia cannot indefinitely accommodate such edits. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Did I really say 1995? "Le-e-et's do the Time Warp aga-a-ain!" Sheesh. I must've been tired, or listening to an old album or something. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't get this. If people need to correct things, we have endless things to correct. Remember, anyone can edit, which means an endless supply of typos/whatsits/etc. We have pages devoted to lists of recurring nightmares. Trust me, there are dozens of 'desribed/desribes', 'unecessary', 'equivilent', and the like. If that's too easy, look at every 'Alpert' trying to find the ones that should be 'Albert' (they are out there!). And after reading project talk pages, it is marvelously calming to correct the few 'worshiped' or the one 'stronlgy', and then go to bed. (Ahhh! I have OCD!) Shenme 06:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can stand you lose such an editor (with all the corrections and whatnot). Perhaps some very stern warnings and short blocks when he just can't resist fixing other people's comments would work. A bigger problem, is the misuse of minor edit marking. John Reaves (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely you mean "I don't think we can stand "TO" lose such an editor.....maybe he'll fix it ;) ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think some talk page comment editing is helpful (such as if a message is too incoherent to read) but it looks as if he is taking this way too far. I'd agree with short blocks if this continues. I'd also suggest he put a self-imposed ban on himself from viewing article talk pages if it is getting him to the point of being blocked. VegaDark 07:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, a ban is absolutely rediculous. Short blocks as needed. Besides, he makes people sound better on talkpages. Buy him a beer as a thank you, dont flip out at him. -M^ask? 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly no ban; I would never propose that. Why I bring the issue up here is that he's already received a month's worth of "stern warnings" and received at least one "short block". They aren't working. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty nice that a user is willing to spend time fixing other people's errors, but I agree it gets annoying after a while. He doesn't make major changes anyways, just minor wordings such as "and" -> "plus", so I don't think it's such a big deal? (AQu01rius &#149; Talk) 22:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See the multiparty discussion on this talk page that I linked to in the first post on this topic. A superfluity of "drive-by edited" users do think it is a big deal, and this behavior is specifically warned against at WP:EQ and even the subject of its own user warning template. While it isn't the same thing as blanking page or inserting defamatory comments in bios of living people, it is still disruptive and needs to be addressed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been a big part of the discussions with Bart on this subject (see the summary discussion created on his talk page by SMcCandlish), and have found myself having the same dilemma people are discussing here. I certainly don't think he should be banned, as he does a lot of useful things here, but at the same time I think his actions on talk pages are very disruptive. I'm hoping the short blocks have made an impression -- he doesn't seem to have done it nearly as much in the last week or so. For those who don't think it's a big deal, I agree that it's not a big deal, but it's still a bad thing -- as the discussion on Bart's talk page shows, it's very easy to change the meaning of a comment unintentionally, and it makes many editors uncomfortable that others are seeing something other than exactly what they wrote. Pinball22 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)