User:AI is tagging sections at Ahmadinejad. After being prompted to use the talk page, he left some puzzling communications there (including a photo of a nuclear explosion) and readded the tags. Essentially, the rationale that User:AI presented for the accuracy tags is that the sections aren't notable, even though he doesn't dispute that everything there is factually correct. Over the past few weeks, many editors have worked on the sections in question, and there seems to be consensus over the existence of those sections. I don't want to get into an edit war (I've already reverted twice), and I'm not sure of the proper scope for the accuracy tags, nor of the protocol for using them. Perhaps some people can keep the article on their watchlists to monitor the situation. Thanks, HKT 01:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Help!

A user, User:DHarjo with a nasty dispostion and likley sockpuppet accounts has taken up residence at Talk:Western United States and Talk:American West. He's intent on only portrarying one model of how the region is defined, his. He is determined to include areas that are not always included and exclud areas that sometimes are. His view is already included in the article, but he's seeking to suppress differing views. I've tried to reason with him; Jmabel, Katefan0, and myself all of whom live in or are from areas that can be considered the West- and therefore have personal experience and knowledge of our homestates. I'd file an RFC, but I need Katefan0 to certify the basis and she's on vacation. Without an RFC, this is the only other place I can think of to turn for help. HELP!!!. -JCarriker 04:48, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• I can generally certify that DHarjo's behavior has been bad, including a lot of personal attacks. I can certify JCarriker's specific complaints about DHarjo, but I can't certify that I have also tried and failed to work with DHarjo on this because the dispute is about a topic I am not significantly involved in. For all I know, DHarjo may have some legitimate issues about the content of the article: I can't tell, because DHarjo seems to be attacking personally rather than stating a case. (In particular, just giving a list of books does not amount to citation, especially for removing material from an article: you can't just say "go out and read these nine thick books and you'll know that other one you specificaly cited is wrong".) -- Jmabel | Talk 05:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• PerhapasWP:RFC?Geni 06:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• If the misbehaviour continues, perhaps Joe would be willing to certify it in the interim. El_C 06:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  But I can't certify that I've tried to work this through with DHarjo, because I haven't (and have no desire to try). -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Perhaps someonelse could step in and try to work this out. If their efforts succeded there would be no need for an RFC, if they failed they could certify it. -JCarriker 06:46, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• • • I'm willing to come in and see if some kind of middle ground can be reached. I need to hear from DHjaro before I come to any real conclusion, but I think that the confusion and conflict comes from both sides wanting the article to be about different things. The Western United States is a geographical article, but what DHjaro seems to want to talk about is how, historically, the American West has been treated. Many of the books he cites are history books; particularly those from so-called "New Western" historians, who (in a general sense) define the West as a region starting from the 98th parallel, and also define it in terms of aridity to distinguish it from the East. The article as it stands adheres firmly to the Census Bureau definition, which is demographic, not geographic or historical. TX and OK may not be in the CB-defined West, but certainly for most historians they would want to talk about the settling of OK in their story of the West, and TX is a special case on its own. I'll keep an eye on the discussion and see what input I can offer, although strictly speaking I'm not a Western historian. --khaosworks 07:11, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Blocking IP addresses and proxy ranges: recap/summary/personal advice

Legitimate Wikipedians may be blocked through no fault of their own, because their edits come from proxy servers maintained by major Internet service providers like AOL and NTL. For an example, see User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection. Keep in mind that for every user who perseveres and gets unblocked, there are probably more who just give up and go away.

Blocks in proxy ranges should be kept to a minimum:

• Vandals may use these proxies, but many more potentially legitimate users will do too.
• The effort needed to revert vandalism is negligible. Administrators often block because they're tired of "personally" taking care of it or desire to "punish" the vandal, not because a block is really necessary to prevent wide-scale damage. A block is a time-saver, not a panacea. Vandalism is reverted incredibly fast on Misplaced Pages—and that's not because we block vandals.
• A short block (in the order of 15 minutes) is often just as effective as a long one. A blocked vandal will quickly lose interest and move on.
• Persistent vandals cannot be stopped even by long blocks, because they will sooner or later be assigned a new proxy by their ISP (for legitimate users, it obviously feels more like "later"). This is not taking into account persistent vandals who are knowledgeable, and will seek out proxies on their own.

While Special:Blockip has a big and obvious list of IP ranges that contain proxies, administrators routinely overlook, misunderstand or ignore the advice to keep blocks as short as possible. Two things conspire to make this situation extra bad:

• These ranges are maintained manually. There is no software support for checking if an IP address is within the range and reminding administrators. This is bug #2879.
• There is a so-called "autoblocker", which blocks anyone (registered or anonymous) editing under an IP address formerly used by a blocked account (registered or anonymous) for 24 hours. There are currently no means to selectively turn off the autoblocker, or a way to block only an account or only an IP address. It is possible to unblock the autoblocked accounts without affecting the original block, but you'd have to know it happened in the first place.

The net effect is that if a proxy is blocked, everyone who edits through that proxy is blocked, vandal, anonymous editor and account-holding Wikipedian alike. I've noticed a startling lack of concern from many admins, who seem to think AOL customers aren't worthy of editing Misplaced Pages anyway, or who believe the benefit of blocking a vandal outweighs the possibility of losing legitimate editors. If that's really what you think, I'd personally be grateful if you didn't block at all and limited yourself to using rollback. Then again, I don't spend hours every day patrolling recent changes, so the battle-hardened veterans may consider me soft and lazy. So be it. I'm not here to tell you how to do your job, I'm just telling it like I see it.

If you are an admin, please take the following guidelines under consideration, even if you decide not to follow them:

• If you haven't already done so, please set an e-mail address in your preferences so blocked users can reach you. This will not reveal your e-mail address to anyone, unless you reply to them.
• Do not hand out blocks if, through circumstances, you have little time to spend on Misplaced Pages. A careless or overlong block is usually worse than none at all. We will always have alert editors to revert vandalism; admins reachable and willing to unblock people are rarer, no matter how you slice it. You are not personally responsible for driving every vandal off Misplaced Pages you happen to come across.
• Read and respect the instructions given at Special:Blockip. If you do not understand what an IP range is or how to check if an address falls into a range, then by all means do not block IP addresses. Ask a fellow admin to show you the ropes if necessary. Admins are kind, pleasant and patient folks, right? You should know. :-) Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of if you're willing to acknowledge it.
• I would caution against blocking IP ranges themselves too, but this isn't necessary: generally the people who know how to do this also know when and how to use it. If you're not one of them... just don't.
• In particular, do not block any IP address indefinitely, unless you happen to work for whoever administers the address and can guarantee that nobody else but the original user will ever edit under it. Admins may occasionally decide to block an IP address indefinitely if they are convinced that only persistent, regular and extensive vandalism comes from it, despite repeat blocks. Current wisdom is that open proxies are also to be blocked indefinitely—again, if you do not know how to check that an IP is an open proxy, do not block it indefinitely. Except for these rare circumstances, the benefits of indefinite IP blocks do not outweigh the risks. Vandalism can be undone, but we cannot reclaim users who gave up trying to edit Misplaced Pages.

Folks... let's be careful out there. JRM · Talk 20:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

When dealing with AOL IPs, I find that it's often better to just {{vprotect}} the article for an hour or two.--nixie 01:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Persistent low-level but maddening vandalism

I've tried bringing this to other admins' and non-admin' attention, and haven't got anywhere, but I need to keep trying, because the problem won't go away. I recently placed the following notice on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but it's been removed twice, without adequate or any explanation:

• OmegaWikipedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ultimate Star Wars Freak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — their edits involve insistent reverting of my attempts to Wikify articles; they change Wikilinks from my corrected versions to redirect-versions, change capitalisation in headings, etc., remove section headings, etc., and latterly even simply removing information simply because I've reformatted it (see, for example: , , , , , , (and compare, for example, and ) — but there are hundreds, and the effect is cumulative). I have attempted to reason with them, but they refuse even to compromise, much less change their approach. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute, nor a dispute about style (though style does come into it); it's mainly a problem of persistent low-level vandalism across a large number of articles. these two editors insist on reverting my (and a couple of others') changes to "their" articles in the pop-music area; these include correction of Wikilinks, and MoS corrections to headers, etc. There's nothing unclear or controversial about it, as some of the diffs above indicate. I've tried repeatedly to reason with them, to point them in the direction of the manual of style — but they're not interested (see also Talk:Vision of Love for more discussion of all this). I'm trying to deal with almost single-handed; a couple of editors are helping on a couple of the articles, but I'm spending more than half my editing time simply reverting this pair, and trying to Wikify other articles of which they've taken ownership. (They don't only disdain the MoS, they don't even follow the music-project's single- and album-templates — and they're not even consistent, sometimes reverting one article from style A to style B, and another article from style B to style C. At times it seems that they're simply reverting whatever I do, regardless of content.)

Help! --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Mel, seeing as the AC has imposed sanctions against an editor for "wikistalking", I'd say it's pretty clear that the kind of behavior you describe is against policy in that way. If explaining the MoS, etc., has not changed their behavior, I think escalating this to an RFC or beyond is wise -- people just shouldn't do what they're doing (at least in the examples I read from the links you provide above). In the meantime, if you need help, I hope everyone will be more responsive (I know I'll do my best to keep an eye on articles for this sort of thing). Let me know if you need more or more specific help than this. Jwrosenzweig 00:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; I think that the best first step is for the articles to receive attention from more editors, as I suspect that the problem has its roots in the fact that these two (and perhaps others) have been left alone to create and edit the pop-music articles, and have little experience of the wider Misplaced Pages community. They see me as just an individual with a bee in his bonnet; if my edits were backed up by others, they might begin to calm down and learn how to work by consensus, MoS, and Misplaced Pages custom. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe these editors have, your view of them to the contrary, created a long series of excellent articles on songs and albums. Calling them vandals is really beyond the pale. Everyking 08:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

And I think that you need to think before writing comments here — just for a minute. And looking at the relevant discussions would probably be a good idea too, as well as reading more carefully what you're reacting to. Try living without lashing out at everyone at the slightest (or at no) provocation — you might find that you like it. Everyone else would.

First, I haven't called them vandals, I've said that they're engaging in (low-level) vandalism. Secondly, I not only agree that they've contributed a great deal, I've said that to them in my attempts to reason with them (see, for example, ). However, it's possible both to contribute usefully in some respects and to behave badly in others (just look at the comments in the recent RfA against you). In fact in everything that I've said above I've stressed that I don't want heavy-handed action against them, just some experienced editors looking at and editing the articles in question so that they become aware of the Misplaced Pages community and its norms and standards.

If you don't have anything constructive to add, it's always possible (indeed, desirable) to keep quiet. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, then take your own advice and keep quiet. Everyking 10:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom temporary injunction on JarlaxleArtemis

The following temporary injunction is in force while the Arbitration case is in force:

JarlaxleArtemis (talk • contribs) is banned from editing any Misplaced Pages article other than his own user pages and pages relating to this Arbitration until a final decision is made.

The user has been notified - David Gerard 22:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"Did you know" template correction

The current entry for Battle of Cajamarca on Template:Did you know needs attention on both factual and grammatical grounds:

...that at the Battle of Cajamarca in 1532 the last Incan Emperor Atahualpa was captured by the Spanish and that the battle is considered the decisive victory in the Spanish conquest of the South America?

• Some may quibble that Tupac Amaru, and not Atahualpa, was the last Inca Emperor (Atahualpa could be called the last legitimate Emperor, but even that seems awkward, given that he won the throne from his brother Huascar in a brutal civil war).
• Spanish conquest of Peru might be more appropriate than Spanish colonization of the Americas
• "the South America" begs for an obvious correction. "South America" could also possibly be replaced with "Peru".

Personally, I'm not too fond of the phrase in its entirety, but at this point I think these few minor corrections are preferable to a total rewrite. If the latter is considered, I may suggest:

...that at the Battle of Cajamarca in 1532 the Inca Emperor Atahualpa was captured by Pizarro's conquistadors and that the battle was a decisive victory in the Spanish conquest of Peru?

Albrecht 23:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Because you were the one that created the article, and thus the expert in that subject, I made the copyedit. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Am I tainted?

I just removed protection from therianthropy because IMO it was hastily and inappropriately applied, but Jayjg suggests that I shouldn't have because a couple of days ago I made an edit to the article related to the argument it was protected as a result of. He also suggests I shouldn't be enforcing the 3RR there due to my previous involvement in trying to straighten the argument out, and that I should bring the subject up here (which I'm doing now :). I obviously didn't think it was a big deal when I did it, does anyone have suggestions on what I should do now? Bryan 23:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, nevermind about the protection part - I reprotected the page, put a request for unprotection on RfP, and the original protector unprotected it again all within a couple of minutes. That's moot now. I suppose the part about 3RR still stands, though. Bryan 00:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the question largely revolves around taking a side in any given dispute; I have no knowledge of whether your attempt to, as you put it, "straighten the argument out" counst as that, one way or the other (because I haven't looked at the article at all). El_C 01:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did state an opinion on the substance of the dispute - that one edit I mentioned making was a result of that. And that opinion happened to be in rough agreement with the opinion of one of the parties involved in the dispute. However, I didn't take a side with either of them as individual users, and I have admonished both of them about what I felt was bad behavior in the past. Although I still consider myself unbiased as far as their behavior is concerned, at this point I suspect the appropriate action would be for me to just squawk loudly to other admins in the event of resumed warring on this page and hope that someone will use their powers in my place - I don't want to stretch anyone's comfort levels. Bryan 01:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

If it's a clear 3RR vio (i.e., four edits in 24 hours that add/remove the same info), I'll volunteer; leave me a note and I'll do the block. -- Essjay · Talk 06:31, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Everyking 3 arbcom case closed

The arbitration committee has indefinitely suspended the Everyking 3 arbitration case after IRC discussion led to the following agreement between Everyking and Snowspinner:

Everyking voluntarily agrees to avoid commenting on, second guessing, or otherwise alluding to Snowspinner or Snowspinner's actions anywhere on the Wiki. Everyking will, in short, pretend Snowspinner does not exist. Everyking may politely converse with Snowspinner on user talk:Snowspinner or user talk:Everyking. Everyking is also free to bring an RFC or Request for Arbitration against Snowspinner if he so chooses. Beyond this, Everyking's editing privileges will not be affected

Because someone is bound to mention it - yes, we realize there is no enforcement clause. Everyking is on his honor to abide by the agreement. If something goes horribly wrong, we'll reopen the case. →Raul654 06:32, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ya... it's the comments about admins that have begun to irk me. His main namespace edits are par excellence (is this the correct obscure French term?) - Ta bu shi da yu 06:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

not really, you may be looking for exquisit or nickel :) dab (ᛏ) 07:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming it expires in a year, since no time is mentioned? Everyking 07:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

since this is allegedly a voluntary agreement, I suppose it depends on what exacly you have voluntarily agreed to? dab (ᛏ) 07:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I agreed to it under the threat of much worse happening if I didn't. Therefore I'd like to know when I can go back to speaking freely without having an ArbCom case automatically reopened. Everyking 08:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

did it occur to you to ask the arbcom that question at the time you 'agreed', rather than the admin noticeboard (where you are much less likely to get an authoritative answer)? dab (ᛏ) 09:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree (in what is I think an almost identical response to the last time I commented on EK on this page) that this is not the place for this discussion. Whether or not EK should have gotten this clarified prior to making the agreement, I can live without settling (though I do think that would have been a good time to raise the issue). What I am positive of is that a question should be directed directly to the AC on an AC page (perhaps the talk page linked to in Raul's comment, but I don't think anyone need follow my advice to that level of specificity). I'd like to see this section of the AN not become a battleground, and I feel that's a reasonable hope? Jwrosenzweig 09:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was one of the things that was floating around in my head, but there were other issues to settle and in the end I never remembered to ask about that. Everyking 09:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

in any case, my (unasked for?) advice to Ek would be to consider the agreement to last for a year. If you can really keep out of another arbitration case for a whole year, I am sure everybody will be very happy and pleased, and if you do jump at Snowspinner's throat exactly 356 days from now, well, it will at least have been 365 days' respite for everyone. dab (ᛏ) 09:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

It isn't up to me to say whether there'll be another case before then. Well, there will be another case in the sense that I have an appeal coming up in October, but I mean aside from that. Anyway, I don't appreciate this whole attitude you have about it. You are making it sound like I'm the bad guy and if I lay off it'll be a "respite". Everyking 09:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

no, I don't pretend to know anything about the case. If you prefer you can parse my comment as, 'if you ignore Snowspinner for one year, he will hopefully have no pretext for picking on you'. The upshot (assuming he will ignore you, too) will be a year without rehashes of this arbcom case, which will be a good thing. dab (ᛏ) 10:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the case needs to be re-opened.... --Carnildo 07:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Why? Everyking 08:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikimania coverage

A bunch of links that may be of interest:

Wikimania 2005 Aug 5-7 - Programme - Listen live

It would be nice if we could perhaps highlight this on the site over the weekend. I talked to Jimbo on IRC and he suggested a front page box, but said that he felt he couldn't do it himself. Dan100 (Talk) 14:18, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

perhaps a full width box of about two or three lines depth above the featured article and in teh news boxes? Speaking as someone who is lucky enough to be, it is certianly worth listening in to what you can as already I've learned a huge amount of interest. Thryduulf 16:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea - in fact I think there's a commented-out announcements box on the main page. It will only be for 48 hours. Dan100 (Talk) 20:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Disruption/Blocks

1) Can an administrator use the term "disruption" (without providing evidence to back up the term) to block and/or censor an editor they dislike? 2) Where can an editor notify about Admn. disruption and abuse? 3) Can I file a formal complaint? See noticeboard/incidents for example. Thanks.69.209.223.164 18:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well reallize that the evidence is in the edit history both ways. Both the disruptive edits, and the blocks. Presumably this is about the blocks by User:Jayjg and User:SlimVirgin. It appears they have some good evidence of personal attacks and other disruptive behavior. And to answer the question you wrote but removed "Can an Admn. block, based solely on the editor, but without focusing on actual edits themselves?" is yes, absolutely they can. If you don't want to be blocked simply follow the policies, use common sense, and make all good contributions. It's not really very hard. I presume they have some pretty good evidence, and I'd like to see some of it, because if they don't, then removing your comment from AN/I is improper. - Taxman 20:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thank You, Taxman. You are damn right their conduct is improper. These two editors (and usually Jpgordon following not far behind) have been abusive and utterly dishonest. They have been WIKI-STALKING me for the last week, reverting edits without discussion. The issue in a nutshell is they believe that one must have their imprimatur to edit topics they guard POV on, viciously and jealously. They are controversial administrators, I am not the first editor to note it, I will not be the last. I have been editing in good-faith, they have not. Let's review these so-called disruptive edits. Each and every single block has been disruptive and dishonest. For some reason, these three have targeted me. Nobody else seems to want to Wiki-stalk me but them. 69.209.223.68 22:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with this case, but just for the record I'd like to point out that 'wikistalking' isn't disruptive per se, nor is it a violation of anything. Everyone's edit history is a matter of public record, and you can't blame people from looking through it. That said, reverting without discussion is a bad thing, as is guarding POV. Radiant_>|< 07:44, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Request

Would it be possible to set a bot flag for Schneelocke | (Contribs)? Although I'm sure his noting of images without tags is both useful and necessary, it's filling up the Recent Changes page rather quickly, and making it hard to follow the other edits. --Blu Aardvark | 22:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You need a steward for that. Try m:requests for permission →Raul654 22:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• I'll remember that if the issue comes up in the future. Thanks. --Blu Aardvark | 02:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD Closing

I'm curious about an aspect of VfD closing. When I run across a VfD where the consensus is to merge, but I don't feel qualified to do the merge, is it proper to close the VfD (adding the tags to the VfD page, removing the tag from the article, etc.) and put the merge template on the article noting that it needs to be merged per VfD? If it's going to be merged, then it won't be deleted (have to keep the page history) so couldn't the contributors do the merge, set the redirect, and save having it on the VfD to-do list for six months? What's the rule on this? -- Essjay · Talk 13:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you can simply tag the article for merging (I've done it more than once) and close the VfD debate. --cesarb 14:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet alert?

Not sure where to post this, but anyway. I've noticed by chance that no voter at Misplaced Pages:Collaborations of the Week/Zoodio, except the nominator had made more than 3 edits, all of them to their userpages or the voting page. Can somebody investigate? Circeus 14:01, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Requests for page protection

Please when you protect (or don't protect) a page after a request at WP:RFPP, please could you post a note to say that you have (not) protected it even if you don't move it to the Old section. I'm finding it frustrating working through the list to find that some apparently unanswered requests have actually been protected. Thryduulf 14:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes admins will independently protect a page without being aware that a request had been posted at RFPP. -- Curps 15:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

How exciting, I have a stalker

It may of course be coincidence, but suddenly -Ril- (talk · contribs) is popping up on articles for the first time, reverting my edits. I haven't checked, but has anyone else had the same experience, or am I honoured? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

-Ril-'s been around since January 2005. If this user is suddenly reverting your edits, that's one thing, but I don't think this account was created solely for the purpose of stalking you. --Deathphoenix 14:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a particular editor's behavior, talking to them seems more productive than asking everyone else if they smell a rat. If you believe talking to them will not be productive or if you want the community to weigh in, start an RfC. You do not seem to be asking for comments on administrative tasks, so I don't quite see why this is here. JRM · Talk 14:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

1. I didn't suggest that the account was created just to stalk me — why did you think that I did?
2. Talking to -Ril- is never productive (check his Talk page, and his interactions with editors in general).
3. I'm asking if others (and especially other admins who have encountered and displeased him) have found him behaving in the same way. I don't rush to RfC (and not only because they rarely have any useful effect). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Technically an RfC ("Request for Comment", although "Request for Castigation" is the usual expansion) would be just the right tool to use. Technically. We all know it doesn't work that way, of course... but I sometimes like to pretend. JRM · Talk 16:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• -Ril- has been stalking me for approximately 2 weeks (I would have to check for sure) and reverted me perhaps going on a 100 times by now. He intentially targets you. I am not much in the way of battling (I think I had enough of it) him myself. I have attempted to get others to assist, but it is difficult because he is obstinate and threatening. He totally ignored SlimVirgin when she was trying to be helpful. I will put together those 100 edits and intentional targeting to assist if necessary (it really is unpleasant since he targets you, and it does not matter how much you attempt to discuss any issue, because he does not care about the issue, he wants revenge or something). --Noitall 16:46, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• A similar thing happened with me about a month ago. After disagreeing with me on the Bible verses issue, -Ril- began mass reverting my moving of templates from the article to the talk namespace. A wholly unrelated issue to our original dispute. - SimonP 17:16, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Vigilante blocks

Since individual admins are not entitled to block people without warning for alleged "POV edits", could someone revert those:

1. 17:23, August 5, 2005 PMA blocked "User:Thecunninglinguists" with an expiry time of indefinite (junk edits, POV edits and reverts, username similar to a sexual act)
2. 08:03, August 5, 2005 PMA blocked "User:NoPuzzleStranger" with an expiry time of 99 hours (POV edits to Iraqi insurgency, attacks on other users, POV reverts)

(By the way, the "POV edits" in question consisted in the shocking statement that Iraq is presently under foreign military occupation, as opposed to... "under reconstruction" as Adam Carr and PMA would like to see it.) 62.233.250.42 15:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Sad, sad. I won't unblock because there are people who are just looking for an excuse to accuse me of abusing admin powers, but somebody bolder (or less vulnerable) than me should do it. Everyking 15:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Thecunninglinguists should remain blocked indef. for username policy violation. While it's not exactly the name of a sex act, it is definately designed to resemble it (Cunning Linguist is a fairly common joke) and thus should not be allowed. I'm going to unblock for the other and reblock indef. with a "change your username" note. -- Essjay · Talk 15:45, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked the editor. The user name is a minor joke, and while it does resemble the name of the sexual act, it is not offensive. --Sn0wflake 15:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Also note that the similarly-named User:CunningLinguist has been editing merrily away since Nov 2004. To be fair, both of these usernames should get the same treatment - and IMO that would be to leave them alone. FreplySpang (talk) 15:57, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I was unaware of User:CunningLinguist; considering that, I agree the other should be unblocked (if they haven't been already). -- Essjay · Talk 16:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

User was still blocked (apparently I did my unblock/reblock after you did your unblock), so I have unblocked. -- Essjay · Talk 16:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo and Vietnam War

Stevertigo (talk · contribs), on Vietnam War, reverted eleven times to his preferred version (reported at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Stevertigo), figuring, I guess, that the 3RR didn't apply to him. Maybe he was right, because User:Thryduulf didn't block him, but protected the page instead.

But it looks like that Stevertigo decided that the page protection rules didn't apply to him, either, 'cause he went into the protected page and reverted to the version he wanted. So has the "Ignore All Rules" exception become the norm, instead?

(And before anyone asks, it's a content dispute, not vandalism simple or subtle) --Calton | Talk 16:31, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 24 hours. HGe wasn't revrting simple vandalism.Geni 17:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam 2.0

I received the following message on my talk page:

An admin has re-created the VFD'd article Criticism of Islam on 1st August 2005. You previously redirected it and protected the redirect to support the result of the VFD. Could you please repeat this? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I attempted to investigate, but there has been so much activity in the past few days, plus the message here earlier in the week, that I am unable to determine exactly what the existing content is. Could other admins look into this and offer input into the right way to proceed? I don't know enough about the existing activities to understand what I would be getting in the middle of, and I certainly don't want to act on this without getting the advice of others. Is anybody familiar enough with this to be able to decipher it? -- Essjay · Talk 16:58, August 6, 2005 (UTC)