Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive127

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Noticeboard archives

v • d • e
Noticeboard archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67
Incident archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157
3RR archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34
Other links
Talk | Checkuser | ArbCom enforcement | Backlog

Contents

[edit] User:Tchadienne

I'm being harassed by several users, which is nothing new. So far today, an admin actually did something in response to a complaint I posted (against User:Arbiteroftruth who was posting personal attacks on several users' pages), which is more than I can say for any admin I have ever encountered on Wikipedia.

Now, I once again ask the admins of Wikipedia, to do something. User:JzG, who somehow got elected to adminship, continues to threaten to indefinitely block me and says he will protect my talkpage if I continue to revert supposed "warnings" against my "vandalism." I have already proven, at length on User talk:Daduzi, that I am right, and others are wrong. JzG continues to engage in personal attacks against User:Incorrect, vandalizes The Guardian, and vandalizes my talkpage. Block him and warn him about wikistalking. Tchadienne 18:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

JzG appears to be doing the best he can toward the goal of trying to get you to cease your blatant assumptions of bad faith and breaches of civility. I cannot say I envy him the job. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tchadienne, can some admin please do something? On Talk:The Guardian, there has been made a clear threat to edit war, and to game the system w.r.t. 3RR. As for the rest, it is a content dispute; bring it to WP:RFC if you must; not here. Content disputes should not be solved with admin powers. Eugène van der Pijll 18:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know a great deal about the specifics of this incident, but just from your tone it's not difficult to see why users aren't rushing to assist you. In two short paragrahps, you've managed to accuse others of vandalizing articles and making personal attacks, insisted that you've proven yourself to be correct, insulted all Wikipedia admins (singling out JzG) as well as demanding that JzG be blocked. Have you considered that perhaps a less aggressive tone would lead to better results? Aren't I Obscure? 18:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Tchadienne is intent on inserting a criticism section into The Guardian based on the "fact" that an article castigating Mel Gibson for a drunken outburst is somehow antisemitism. Or something. His failure to persuade others of the merits of his case (essentially the result of a mixture of WP:OR and failure to cite any reliable sources) led him to edit war over an NPOV tag; per policy it's pretty clear that failure to persuade others of the merit of your case is not grounds for tagging an article. I have just blocked Tchadienne for 24h for removing {{wr}} from his talkpage, which is blatant WP:POINT. Our interaction thus far is brief enough that an assertion of harrassment is risible. I fear that what we have hear is a Bearer of TruthTM with all the problems that usually entails. Just zis Guy you know? 18:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
A Jeanne d’Arc, actually. Anyway, User:Tchadienne doesn’t like not being able to edit, check out 4.249.3.40 (talk • contribs). —xyzzyn 19:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well if you thought that removing {{wr}} was blatant, try this edit summary: [1] Just zis Guy you know? 19:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the preventive value of a 24h block, see also the user’s old accounts: [2], [3]. The user is not just a troll—there are many good edits—, but occasionally somewhat lacking in the area of WP:CIVIL and liable to misinterpret WP:V. HTH. —xyzzyn 19:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed - this bears all the hallmarks of a frustrated bearer of The TruthTM; as usual when the reliable sources fail to back The TruthTM the only possible solution is to use the sources we have and explain how they are reliable, honest they are, even if they are blogs. It's not so much that he doesn't take kindly to threats, it's that he doesn't take kindly to being thwarted, and apparently interprets anything that prevents him geting his way as a threat, thus alowing him (in his eyes) to ignore it. This busines sof The Guardian being antisemitic because it had a Jerusalem correspondent who was critical of the Israeli Government is pretty typical stuff; without wanting to venture into political debate I think it's not exactly a secret that some people accuse anybody who is not completely uncritical of Israel of being antisemitic rather than anti-Israeli Government, because antisemitism has such uniquely atrocious connotations. Just zis Guy you know? 20:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Its no secret that anyone saying "without getting into anything political" is about to get into something political. Although in your case it was also wrong and inappropriate to bring it up here as well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Where did that come from? A tendentious editor has accused a long-established British newspaper of anti-semitism, despite its history of support for the existence of the state of Israel, because it had the temerity to publish reports critical of the Israeli government. No reliable sources have been presented to back the assertion that this paper is anti-semitic. The anti-semitism in question appears to be entirely restricted to the portrayal of comtemporary Israeli government policy. A barrow is being pushed, in other words. Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I really have no desire to get invovled with this dispute. However, I found the above statement- "I think it's not exactly a secret that some people accuse anybody who is not completely uncritical of Israel of being antisemitic" was inappropriate to bring up here. Since it very much relates to divisive and emotive issues. Your comment was needlessly inflammatory.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't inflammatory until you actually inflamed it -- providing, unintentionally, I'm sure, evidence by example for JzG's statement. --Calton | Talk 00:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I generally agree with your comments, Calton (and JzG's for that matter), but in this case I cannot. The statement was simply inflammatory and unnecessary. I didn't agree with Tchadienne's edits, and told him so, but if JzG really didn't want to "enter into a political debate", then he shouldn't have. Jayjg (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
"Silence those who oppose freedom of speech!" ;-) Just zis Guy you know?
I for one do not feel inflamed. This whole affair demonstrates that editors should not edit articles unless they can detach themselves from them emotionally. Stephen B Streater 08:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

And I agree with JzG's characterisation of the origin of the dispute. It is impossible to describe the conflict without mentioning the political misunderstanding that Tchadienne appears to be labouring under; that any criticism of Israel amounts to anti-Semitism. It does not. --Guinnog 12:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tchadienne is now posting as User:NOBS, as he says himself: "this is in use until the block wears off" --Guinnog 19:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Historical note: iirc, the last time, someone had to block 4.249.0.0/16 to stop the user. —xyzzyn 19:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
It must be approaching that stage again, one would think? --Guinnog 19:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked NOBS indefinitely, and extended Tchadienne's block to 72 hours from now. If it happens again, I would endorse the above range block. Ral315 (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This is tedious and unacceptable behaviour and the time is approaching when we should consider doing something mroe permanent about it. Just zis Guy you know? 20:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, per [4] Tchadienne is still playing silly buggers, so I porpose to enact the rangeblock above. Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I support the rangeblock proposal; it's really unfortunate, as this user has many good edits.--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Same here. Many good edits, but I think he would benefit from a block. --Guinnog 21:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, many good edits. And quite a few bad ones. And above all an absolute contempt for any attempt to enforce policy Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, the bad far outweighs the good. I agree with Ra1315 that if he does it again it should be a range block. I would urge consideration of a permanent ban as well, unless there is real evidence that the user has changed his ways. It's an awful waste of everybody's time and energy to have to babysit like this when we could be doing something more useful. Let's wait and see for a day or two for now. --Guinnog 23:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all I want to say that as a long time collaborator of Tchadienne, my opinion may be biased, even if I hope it's not. That said, I know Tchadienne and I can tell what he isn't - a troll. In the wikiproject we both work on, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chad, I have never had to revert his edits, or introduce radical changes; and I have never had any problems reverting my friends if their edits did not comply with WP:NPOV or WP:V (I edit also a lot on problematic articles concerning the Balkans, so this happens very often). And I believe that Tchadienne's concerns regarding the Guardian article were legitimate and founded, even if I must admit Tchadienne's solution, a criticism section, was not a great idea. I also know that Tchadienne often has a difficult character, and that he tends to over-react; but his dedition to NPOV is true and authentic. We need more editors like Tchadienne, not less, and as for these "quite a few bad ones", i.e. bad edits, I must be a bit strabic, because I seem to have strangely missed them. I'm afraid I have instead detected a certain animus by JzG against Tchadienne. Please remember what is said about controversial blocks at WP:BLOCK: among them are blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reasoning for the block. For this I feel the community should be lenient, and his block should be reduced in respect, among other things, for the quality work done in areas almost ignored by wikipedia. I won't reduce his block myself, because my action could be biased; but I feel all the same it should be reduced.--Aldux 23:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

24 hour blocks are no real punishment. They can be issued for the most useful logged-in editors when they temporarily lose their head, just to give them time to cool off. Using sock puppets to get around such a block says to me that that user has not yet cooled down enough. I think I would support unblocking the user 24 hours after he ends using sock puppets; until then, the longer block is entirely justifies, in my opinion. Eugène van der Pijll 23:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
See User:4.249.6.96 for another attempt to evade the block. --Guinnog 00:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm amused; I appear to have "engaged in vandalism, personal attacks, wikistalking and violations of WP:POINT". How rouge I am. Ral315 (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
In response to Aldux, I admit, Tchadienne is a prolific editor at Chad-related articles. Yet there is no excuse for sockpuppeting to evade a block, and we shouldn't encourage it by simply letting the block lapse. I have no issue with Tchadienne, and hope that he/she edits productively after the block. Ral315 (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The 24-hour block was not punishment. We don't block for punishment, we block to prevent disruption of the project, in this case to stop a user making problematic and disruptive edits for long enough for the other editors on the article(s) in question to come to some kind of agreement as to what to do. That's why block evasion - especially when it includes taunting the blocking admins - is unacceptable, and why sockpuppetry to evade a block is also unacceptable. In this case Tchadienne did both, as well as perhaps a bit of forum-shopping (I'm guessing it's no accident that we are seeing input here from people who are not often seen hereabouts). It's fine to have strong opinions, but edit-warring is not the way to persuade others of the merit of those opinions. Tchadienne has without question been around long enough to know that removing uncited content and starting a debate on Talk is not vandalism and blogs are explicitly not reliable sources. As a wise editor once said, if your edits do not meet with approval, instead of repeating the arguments only louder, bring better arguments. Just zis Guy you know? 10:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's Julie Burchill, a Guardian columnist at the time of writing it, accusing the Guardian of new anti-Semitism. And a follow-up about the topic in general a week later. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, but, according to Google, devoid of impact.[5][6] So its coverage would have to be balanced with respect to the more significant stuff in the article, which amounts to… very little, really. —xyzzyn 11:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Ummmm, Julie Burchill? Riiiiiight. Any references from respected political journalists? Just zis Guy you know? 14:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
She wrote it in the Guardian. If you think the Guardian is a reliable source, then the Burchill article is a reliable source too. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Julie Burchill is not considered by most people, even those who like her, as an enyclopedic or reliable source. She says things to shock; arguably her tenure at the Guardian was good for the paper for that reason.
  2. Regardless, Julie Burchill did not state in the reference given that she left because the Guardian was anti-Semitic. Neither did she say that anti-Zionism was the same as anti-Semitism. The crucial bit is "... I don't swallow the modern liberal line that anti-Zionism is entirely different from anti-semitism; the first good, the other bad". She is being ambiguous, maybe deliberately, but this is a bit different from what you claimed above.
  3. Whatever you think Julie Burchill might have meant in her ambiguous swan-song, criticism of Israel definitely does not equate to anti-Semitism. This isn't a POV dispute. --Guinnog 19:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Apparently I am not actually antisemitic, only anti-Zionist (User talk:Tchadienne#ello). So that's alright then; anti-Zionist could hardly be construed as a personal attack, could it? Just zis Guy you know? 15:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
O RLY? —xyzzyn 18:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

After running my eye over the quabble at User talk:Tchadienne following its unprotection, I think the page should be reconsidered for protection. Sciurinæ 17:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask that you leave it for now, as I am trying to show Tsch a way out and avoid worse consequences? Thanks --Guinnog 18:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
That's good-hearted of you and I was actually regretting having made my previous statement because the obnoxious commentary stopped and the discussion was becoming better. Sciurinæ 19:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Since there’s already a section here for this, can somebody check out [7]? —xyzzyn 19:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

When I first encountered this user I wondered whether he was someone who used multiple identities. I am glad that he now acknowledges that he has done so. I had an exchange with this user in April, over a controversial renaming of charities accused of ties to terrorism to charities with ties to terrorism. I thought I was civil, but he complained about me on the administrator's noticeboard. A week or so later this user nominated the persona they were then using for administrator. He was asked whether he had any unresolved disputes, and how he resolved disputes. He didn't mention his recent dispute with me. So, I brought it up, and asked some questions. They didn't answer my questions. They accused me of personally attacking them. Their campaign for administratorship failed, but it was fairly close. After his campaign for administratorship failed they filed a reqquest for comment about my behavior. I opted to have an administrator move the request for comment to my user space -- User:Geo Swan/RfC 2006-4-17. -- Geo Swan 04:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just some information for all editors here: I've discussed thoroughly of the thing with User:JzG and User:Ral315. I first spoke with Ral: he agreed on unblocking, and asked JzG if he would agree to remove the range-block, which he did today. After JzG had done the first step, I unblocked Tchadienne as that was also Ral's intention, and he wasn't online at the moment.--Aldux 19:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user:KI and user:Tchadienne

He is reporting a password problem with his Tchadienne account on the KI user talk page. Feel free to help on that if you can. I'm reporting it here because he seems to want me to protect that page due to selective removal of comments. Please review, maybe he'll use the FSF account next if KI is protected. NoSeptember 18:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's good to see that Tchadienne/KI/FSF has cooled off and is back to acting in a civil manner. [8] Yes, that's sarcasm. Aren't I Obscure? 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
No more sockpuppets, either.[9] And no b_______. —xyzzyn 20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It looks like he is following a repeating pattern: use an account until his tendentious editing brings the unwelcome attention of admins, usually in the form of a series of blocks, then whitewash the talk page to conceal past controversies, assert innocence, and move on to a new account, most likely to do the same all over again. Just zis Guy you know? 20:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Is someone not getting enough attention? Tchadienne 20:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Older teens discussing sex with pre-teen?

It looks as though Alexbuirds, a 16 year-old, may be involved in a discussion about sex and pornography with Bethicalyna (a 16 or 17 year-old) and Lindsay1980, an 11 year-old. Please see the talk pages and contributions of these users. It is entirely possible that I am mistaken (it's a little late in the evening and I have not investigated this in any significant level of detail) or may all be happening off-line. However, I would really appreciate it if someone could investigate and if necessary, put a stop to it. I may be leaping to conclusions, though, and it may be nothing at all or may be completely innocent. --Yamla 04:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you should leave them alone. People like you have been harrassing and stalking me on and off wiki for ever since I have been here for preferring to be gay even though I am very discreet. Please stop.Brohanska 04:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sexual discussions with children below the age of consent are a bit different than people harrasing you due to your orientation. At minimum, there is a concern of liability and/or very bad publicity for Wikipedia if anything illegal or highly questionable is happening here. JoshuaZ 04:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I object to this personal attack from Brohanska. I have nothing against gay people and at least two of my friends are gay. As far as I can see, I have not ever had any dealings with you and I cannot see the relevance to the matter at hand which is Wikipedians using Wikipedia to discuss sex and pornography with an eleven year-old (though as noted, this may not actually be the case). This appears to have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. --Yamla 04:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Another user, but presenting yourself as an 11 year old heterosexual female is rather odd, see Cute_1_4_u (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). Fred Bauder 04:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I really dont care -- it seems as if you are attacking me. Gay young poeple should be free to be who god made them and not subject to degrading assaults on wiki and violance off. And for your information i LOVE pornography and talking about it with other young people. Brohanska 04:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow, take it to the ultimate extreme. Yamla never said anything about gay or homosexual or anything, and you didn't have to either. Just let this go. --JD[don't talk|email] 04:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Both of you calm down. The issue here has nothing to do with orientation. The issues are age of consent, liability for Wikipedia, and possible bad publicity for Wikipedia. JoshuaZ

Didn't you know that under 18 year old adults can talk about sex to each other as long as they are under 18? So its all legal and therefore should be encouraged for them to explore.Brohanska 05:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That depends very much on the relevant jurisdictions. The most likely ones to matter would be US federal law and Florida state law . This may be a matter that the foundation lawyers should look into. And regardless, that won't deal with general issues of liability and/or bad publicity if something happens. JoshuaZ 05:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It's woth noting that Brohanska has only a few edits, and has never self-identified as gay except here and Essjay's talk page, yet claims to having been harrassed both on and off-wiki because of his orientation. Yamla has blocked him as a troll, which I fully support. Thatcher131 (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line: Wikipedia is not a chat room, and I think we are not comfortable as a community with people talking to pre-teens about sexual matters. Please get an AIM or MSN name and do it in private. Most relevant sexual information can be found on articles, where it is better presented. --mboverload@ 05:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't I just delete the thingy? With the subtlety of a sledge hammer, here I go. El_C 05:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the conclusion of this situation, although not to the belief (near the bottom) that children should not contribute to and especially that they should not read Wikipedia. It is sad that Wikipedia has to do such things because of the real, but highly exaggerated, danger to children from pedophiles and, perhaps more importantly, the overreaction of the media and society to anything involving children, particularly their sexuality (one of the valid reasons for the steps taken is the effect of publicity rather than any harm being done). -- Kjkolb 07:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse block of Brohanska ++Lar: t/c 06:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Full support. This one never had anything to do with being gay; I'm gayer than Christmas myself. Essjay (Talk) 06:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Disclaimer: Wikipedia has no official position on the sexual orientation of the Christian holiday celebrated on December 25th. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 06:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse block per above. — Deckiller 06:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs)'s page is pretty disturbing too. That user claims to be 11 on Wikipedia, 13 on Youtube [10], and 14 on blackplanet [11], with "Body type: Very Slim, Curvey, & Sexy 'cause I workout 6 days a week fo' a hour; Best Features: Lips, Face, Hips, booty, legs", and made a contact attempt on Lindsay1980's talk page [12] that could be seen as possibly unsavory depending on Cute 1 4 u's real situation (especially since I think "Raven Symone" turned out to be a sock of Cute 1 4 u). Phr (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • And that user's lengthy list of "friends" may give us some more opportunties to weed out this obscene and uncalled for aspect of the community. I shall propose a new WP:NOT ammendment — Wikipedia is not a sex chat. — Deckiller 07:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • However, #wikipedia is a sex chat. ;) Essjay (Talk) 08:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, if by sex chat you mean inane chatter that makes you want to blow your brains out (maybe that's just me, though). -- Kjkolb 12:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I endorse the block of Brohanska since they appear to be a troll. I personally think that wikipedia is not the place to make sexual hook-ups, regardless of age, since this is largely an encyclopedia. Some ammount of community and off-topic networking will surely go on from time-to-time and should be overlooked, including perhaps some things of a sexual nature--I've been guilty of it too (not sexual though)[13] [14]. But some of these users' talk pages seem to be devoted mostly to non-encyclopedic content and that should not be overlooked. Add in the possible legal ramifications for our site due to soliciting of minors and I think we have a good reason to stop this. I'm pretty sure Florida has laws against soliciting minors, isn't that where a lot of those Dateline busts happened recently? There are probably federal laws as well. If it continues, blocking may be in order. The Ungovernable Force 09:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse: Every step that we take, by commission or omission, that leads us closer to Friendster is a step into the abyss. Secondly, every time we allow or encourage chatting is a time away from encyclopedia writing. (Yeah, I like passing jokes and jousting, too.) Thirdly, it is very likely that all sides of this little psychodrama are staged and part of the performance art that is trollery. Fourthly, if this person(s) spent some time with a copy of Penthouse it would at least spare us having to watch. Geogre 13:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • endorse, per Geogre. Not sure if my non admin opinion is welcome here though. ~ c. tales *talk* 01:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - People should get more warning for things like this before being blocked. Unless common sense suggests behaviour is unacceptable, we should be reluctant to block. --Improv 04:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I continue to press for expending more resources to protect children from predators (who pretend they are children), as well as combat trolls' "staged psychodramas" which pertain to that area. Review of parties directly —and loosely— associated with this particular case is warranted. El_C 02:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

At the request of another user, I am adding a brief follow-up here. I blocked Brohanska simply because I am absolutely convinced the user was a troll. If people out there do not believe the user was trolling, we should discuss the matter with a view to unblocking the user. It would be profoundly inappropriate to block a user because the user was a homosexual. A thorough reading of this user's fairly short contribution history was sufficient to fully convince me that the user was simply trolling, however. As to the other users, I see no reason to believe anyone else should be blocked at this time (nor any significant evidence that they are trolls). Wikipedia does have a right (and an obligation) to prevent the solicitation of underage users where we become aware of it and I feel it is profoundly inappropriate to use Wikipedia to discuss BDSM in particular and pornography in general with eleven year-olds. Partly because the user is eleven, partly because that's not what the Wikipedia is for. However, any such discussion seemed to be limited to "Aboy bringing pain to a girl, pleasurable!?" Possible cause for concern given the ages involved. However, I believe the comment that El_C posted ("you are not permitted") is plenty sufficient and will stop these users from doing that again. In summary: Brohanska blocked for trolling, other users have been warned. I believe this is entirely sufficient for what was most likely a rather innocent little conversation. --Yamla 03:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. This debacle is a perfect example of why I think underage persons should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia, at least as a public rule (whether it can be enforced or not). Issues like this one aside, the anonymity and equalizing factors of Wikipedia make it extremely annoying when I find myself, a college professor, forced to engage in disagreements over articles with editors who are clearly schoolchildren. Wikipedia has enough image problems without being known as an encyclopedia edited by kids. wikipediatrix 21:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crzrussian

I have blocked Crzrussian (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) for one day based on this personal attack. Fred Bauder 04:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet another example of inappropriate blocking for minor/dubious PA. The policy says clearly in extreme cases. Why don't the admins stick to the policies? Ackoz 21:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • FB! You completely misunderstood me!
    • Yas and I have settled our differences earlier, see s/his talk.
    • I was completely uninvolved with Hamas and had s/his talk on my watchlist due to our previous disagreements over Cat:Anti-arab people
    • The comment was absolutely not a personal attack against s/him, particularly since I don't have any reason to believe s/he is palestinian, rather it was a friendly and and obviously preposterous comment, made with the intention of fostering dialogue on the extent of Jew-Zionist world domination of Wikipedia.
    • Finally, even if you were justified in suspending AGF and interpreting my facetious comment as a P.A., surely something like {{NPA}} would have sufficed!
    • - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Note, there appears to be some edit conflicts here which the software is not handling well. Prior to Crzrussian's above comments, the following exchange occured here:

In context, that doesn't look like a personal attack to me, it looks like an inappropriate sarcastic remark. JoshuaZ 04:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I won't reblock him. Fred Bauder 04:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Eeek. Quite inappropriate, but I'm sure Crz knows that already. Sarcastic funny comments can easily be interpreted the wrong way. And please, all pints of blood should be appropriately donated to the Red Cross/Red Crescent or your local blood authority -- Samir धर्म 04:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm half-inclined to block crzrussian for unblocking himself. But I suppose there would be no point.... Snottygobble 04:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Only the Red Cross or Red Crescent, not Magen David Adom? Anti-semite! (and yes, before I get blocked, this is meant as a joke). JoshuaZ 04:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Red Crystal now, /sigh -- Avi 05:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with Crzrussian. I don't think he meant it as a personal attack against me, though how incredibly inappropriate! Yas121 05:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Really no point in blocking Crzrussian (I don't think for a second that his motives were anything but humour), but I'd advise him against unblocking himself in the future. And JoshuaZ, you owe me a pint of blood for that comment. Please send to Canadian Blood Services . -- Samir धर्म 05:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am O-negative, but I'm too underweight to give blood. JoshuaZ 05:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't agree with the initial block, but I'm suspicious of self-unblocking too. Isopropyl 05:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Point on unblocking taken. They won't let me donate blood because I've had Hepatitis A as a kid. That's the American rule, I was told. Is there any sense to this, Doc? In Russia everyone's had it, and it's 100% ok to donate! - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
No, Hep A is ok in Canada at least. I'll happily take it in a few hours as I'm flying someone in with a massive bleed for the morning. In Soviet Russia, blood donates you? -- Samir धर्म 05:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Stalin's Five Pint Plan? Isopropyl 05:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Not to beat a dead horse, but I would not advise against unblocking oneself, or express suspicion of it, I would advise Crzrussian that it is the clearest grounds for desysopping I can think of, and never acceptable except in the rare event of a technical mistake. Dmcdevit·t 05:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with Dmcdevit) Whoa! Advise him against unblocking himself in the future..? Unblocking yourself is blatant misuse of admin tools. CrzRussian, you should have known the policy against self-unblocking, and common sense should have told you that you don't get to use admin powers to give yourself advantages that regular users don't have. That's just not what they're for. I blinked with surprise when I saw your "Needless to say, I have unblocked myself" on Fred Bauder's page, and then your assurance on your talkpage that you have enough credit with the community to act like this. No, you don't. Credit with the community is quite easily lost. Bishonen | talk 05:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC).

OK, just to make clear - I did not state I had enough credit to unblock myself - I said I have enough credit to stay unblocked having (erroneously)(maliciously) unblocked myself. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Advise him against unblocking himself in the future (without a question mark). It was certainly not the right thing to do. He's been advised. I'm certain he'll never do it again. Time to move on. -- Samir धर्म 05:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think Crazy realizes that now. Perhaps he should reblock himself and then let one of you unblock him, for propriety's sake; and no, I think I'm Hep-A negative. -- Avi 05:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. All your points on self-unblocking are taken. I am open to recall. All those who wish to cast the first stone drink a pint..... nevermind... should apply for recall as is their prerogative. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
People may not know how. How about linking to the recall page? Bishonen | talk 05:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC).
Sure. Category:Administrators open to recall - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Crazy, no need for exsanguinatory displays of hyperbole. You would have been unblocked, you know not to do it yourself, and we all have our red corpuscles. What more could we want? Maybe some Scots blood pudding? Although it isn'y kosher :) -- Avi 05:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Unblocking yourself after 5mins...How unfair!! Incidently he (Crzrussian) blocked me few days ago for 24hrs without discussig with me or giving me any kind of proper reason. When I complained in IRC that's exactly what they (Slowking Man) said to him that he a)should have discussed etc and b)not just blocked himself. Anyway I was told there's nothing I can do. I had to stay blocked for 24hrs as the complaints procedure takes even longer than that!...Hmm I guess it's good to be an Admin! Yas121 05:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
As you well enough know, I blocked you per this warning (among others) and the note I left on your talk page. Your unblock request was denied by another sysop. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me sir! Had I been Palestinian I may not have quite seen it as a *joke*!! any more than he would a similar comment about Jews. Yas121 05:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Joke? Where? I said, "obviously preposterous" and "facetious" comment. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well then, I encourage the interested to take a look at my recommendation for Crzrussian's recall, per his suggestion above. Dmcdevit·t 09:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The blocking was not appropriate, as it was a sarcastic comment, not a personal attack. The self-unblocking was also inappropriate; he should have simply raised it on his Talk: page, like everyone else. Crzrussian seems to be repentant though, and I assume he wouldn't do it again, so I don't see the point in taking it further at this point. Jayjg (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The rationale for blocking?

I can't find anything in the blocking rules to justify a block for making one "utterly and completely tasteless comment". I can't support any rational or rules behind this block. We don't block someone for making a stupid personal attack that was meant as a joke. Blocking an admin with a good reputation for what you interpret as a personal attack ? Please explain, because I sure don't understand it. I feel there is something more behind this block other than a stupid comment. --mboverload@ 05:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me sir! Had I been Palestinian I may not have quite seen it as a *joke*!! any more than he would a similar comment about Jews. --Yas121 05:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Just because you're offended doesn't mean that's a reason to block. I'm serious, someone tell me the reason behind the block. --mboverload@ 09:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, here's the comment: ":::Mmmm... yes... a pint of palestinian blood would be a fine dessert right now. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)" This was put on the talk page of a user who had been making edits which present an Arab point of view. The context was a dialog in response to this outrageous post by Ruy Lopez which attempts to exploit Yas121's presumed discontent with our "Zionist bias". In that context, the remark Crzrussian inserted seemed to me outrageous. Perhaps it was just an attempt to make a joke to break the tension. I don't know what was in his mind. Interestingly Yas121 seemed to react maturely, even to someone who had recently blocked him. I will point out something. I blocked Crzrussian for one day. I did not propose desysopping him. I don't see unblocking yourself as meriting automatic desysopping. An administrator does not always have to be mature, just generally so. However, making a facetious remark in the context he did is outrageous. Fred Bauder 12:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... so I did something outrageous, just people can't quite agree what. I'm not terribly sure what the intention was... Best way to put it is, I wanted to escalate the preposterousness to get Yas to drop the Jews control Wikipedia line of thinking. I still don't see my comment as outrageous. Stupid, maybe.
It's pretty clear by now that I will have to resign my mop. Which is a shame, since I think I have made myself very useful with it, and nobody seems to have weighed that yet. Nor did anyone weigh the fact that I've bestowed only a handful of (hopefully proper) blocks, focusing instead of deletions. Everyone should know that I am not bitter, and that my wife will be incredibly grateful if two more dedicated individuals step up for their pint of blood. All you sysops, prepare to handle 100 more deletions per day yourselves! :) Cheers! - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I take no position on this but it is not at all clear to me that such an outcome is desireable or foregone. See below. ++Lar: t/c 18:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I just want to drop in and say that what is occuring here is utterly ridiculous. I think an RfC and a reminder that people are watching you is proper enough for a mistake made. Other admins and editors seem to make ridiculous comments but fly by under the radar. If you have an issue first make an RfC, then take it from there. To suddenly become happy to de-SysOp someone over something else when their other contributions outweight that heavily, is out of line and a waste of our time when there are bigger issues to fry. I think it is fairly obvious that Crz will not abuse the tools and will act more within acceptable lines. Yanksox 16:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm dropping in too (I didn't need the pint of blood for my patient). Other admins have said far more inappropriate things than this. CrzRussian is clearly apologetic for his actions, and I'm certain he's learned from this for the future. An RfC may be appropriate, but instigating a de-sysopping over this? He's an intelligent and highly active administrator. An apology is all that is required in my eyes -- Samir धर्म 16:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Oooh! Advocates! Now copy that to my talk page, boys! - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose as well. It is true that too many admins treat adminship like a Golden Ticket or a Get Out of Jail Free card. It is way to early to make that determination here. Everyone stumbles. The admins who deserve to be de-sysopped are the ones who refuse to admit they have done anything wrong and take corrective criticism as persecution. Good admins learn from their stumbles and their peers and become wiser. The issues raised on your talk page deserve serious consideration but it is much too early to fall on your sword. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Jayjg (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
BITE also applies to new admins: " Remember, every administrator starts as a newbie admin and every admin has made at least one admin-related mistake! Help them out with their new powers as you would help a newcomer with the rest of Wikipedia." Crz has only been an admin since June 8. Let's put this down to teething troubles, as I don't think it's going to be repeated in a hurry. It would be a particular sign of good faith if Crz stated that he would help Yas121 to address his concerns. Tyrenius 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This looks like a test case, and currently there is no provision for "Advocates" to get in the way of a proposed recall. I don't think the system as currently constituted scales worth a damn, but that's not the point. CrazyRussian has said he'd go through with it as advertised if he gets 6 opposers. Surely there's ought to be a reasonable time-limit on collecting those, however? -- nae'blis 17:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hm... borrowing loosely from the concept Res judicata, I imagine the six would have to come "from the same set of events,circumstance, or transactions." - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to suggest that we do something different than what we normally do, and just let this lie for a couple of days before rushing headlong into the breach. Does anyone think that everyone going away, doing other things, and coming back to this with a little mental space would be a bad idea? I fear that we often move too fast. - brenneman {L} 17:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Support not rushing. That said, see also User_talk:Crzrussian#Recall_is_voluntary._Offer_of_clerkship.... my take is that the 6 people certifying a desire for a recall initiates a process (of the recallee's choice... an RfC, a discussion, a re RfA), not an instant desysopping... see also User:Lar/Accountability... that's my take and crzrussian is free to structure this as he sees fit (this suggests that after you add yourself it's a good thing to say exactly what it is you mean by it, it's supposed to be a bit unstructured) ++Lar: t/c 17:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to rush into anything. He's made a mistake as we all do sometimes. He's clearly learned from it. I'd keep a discreet eye and leave it at that. A yellow card, to use a football metaphor. --Guinnog 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hehe... we Russians know a thing or two about that... [15] [16] [17] [18] hehehe - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's your yellow then. Don't let it get to be a red. ;) --Guinnog 19:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mea Culpa

Here goes:

  • While I am certain my comment to Yas was not a personal attack, I apologize to s/him or anyone whose feelings may have been hurt by its inappropriateness. I don't believe s/he was offended.
  • I acknowledge once again that the self-unblock was wrong. It resulted from ignorance of that portion of the unblock policy and from the heat of the moment. It's pretty damn clear that I will not do anything of the sort again.
  • I stand by the block to Yas a week ago, and emphatically deny the charge of edit warring. I acknowledge, however, the contructive criticism on how that block was handled.
  • Given all this, I'll be happy to stand down if two more editors believe that my de-mopping will be a net benefit to this project.

Thanks all. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear all, being just a regular user and not an Admin (in other words powerless) I wasn't going to add anything here. However I really think I should after reading "...I wanted to escalate the preposterousness to get Yas to drop the Jews control Wikipedia line of thinking..."

  • Firstly, Crzrussian you are right I was not offended by your comments (as you saw by my response [[19]], hence you don't need to apologize to me, BUT like I said how could you know that? what if I was Palestinian, living through the recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict?!? How would you feel if a Lebanese made similar remarks to you about Jews?
  • Secondly, I have read through Wikipedia policy and can't see how you can deny you were not Edit warring?[[20]] after Rev my edits about 9 times! Anyway, that's for the Admins to decide not me.
  • Thirdly, can you please point me to where I have stated that "Jews control Wikipedia"!?! So I don't understand why you would say that other than to try and give some legitimacy to the reasons behind your comments.
  • Lastly, on a seperate note...I wish this kind of thorough debate occurred over at Hamas where I've been trying frutlessly to discuss merits of a neutral article in an encyclopedia over just a "damming report"[21] and explain that US-Israel views (right or wrong) do not represent the entire planet. But powers that be, don't really seem at all interested, so far not a single word has been allowed to alter, nor the format in the article. All under the famous guise of "Rev POV" followed shortly by the classic 3RR warning (Thanks Jayjg for Rv all my edits and the Ban warning[22])...Actually I did manage to get someone to finally stick that POV banner on top of the article so Yayy! Anyway that's my 2 bobs worth on the matter.

--Yas121 19:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It is, I think, relevant that Crz was sufficiently familiar with you as to be confident that you'd not take his comment as untoward; I imagine that he'd not have made such a comment to someone with whom he was altogether unfamiliar (although I'd have serious concerns vis-à-vis an editor's inter-personal stability and intellectual fitness were he/she to be off-put by such non-disruptive jocularity). I, similarly, have on occasion left comments on Crz's talk page apropos of the Jewish conspiracy that surely underlies all in the world, because I expect that such comments will not be disruptive. Joe 21:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In support of recall

(inserted by Lar: The request tally is being kept here: User_talk:Crzrussian#Crzrussian_recall_tally)

Since it seems clear to me that many of the above commenting on the proposal for Crzrussian's recall haven't read my full reasoning, I'll reproduce it below. It's not just about unblocking himself, though that is about the most egregious single misconduct you can take as an admin, but also in abusing blocking and rollback, and showing poor judgment by edit warring and more. Dmcdevit·t 19:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. You're in Category:Administrators open to recall, so here's my honest assessment. I no longer have full confidence in your judgment as an administrator. Not only did you unblock yourself, a serious no-no, and grounds enough for desysopping in my opinion, as well as making the very ill-considered comment that led to it [23], you blocked [24] an editor with which you were directly engaged in edit warring, [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34], for what was clearly a content dispute, and which you so much as admit in your threat, saying future attempts to inject this POV will be met with a block, inadequately giving a block warning in an edit summary, of all places, inappropriately using rollback for content reverts and edit warring, and even edit warring in the first place. And I don't even know the bakground of why you were previously blocked for talk page spamming. As far as I'm concerned, your abuse of unblocking and blocking powers, and rollback, and demonstrating poor judgment in your comments and warnings, and certainly in even engaging in edit warring at all, all in just the last few days, are certainly enough for me to call your adminship into question. So, accordingly, I would ask that you resign your adminship until such time as the community can reconfirm its confidence in your judgment. Thank you. Dmcdevit·t 08:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Your opinion has been made known. This is not an RfA. It is inappropriate to campaign for "Recall per nom" votes. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not. It is being discussed here. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption that everyone read your talk page as well, and there are points brought up there that haven't been mentioned. Dmcdevit·t 20:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Aren't people meant to get warned for things on first offence, and given the chance to change, before action is launched against them? Tyrenius 20:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the offense. In this case, one presumes an admin is aware of the policy against unblocking oneself - its not an "oops" its a deliberate violation of the Rules. For a more extreme example, when one commits a crime one is usally not given a free pass the first time - one is aware it is illegal, one does it anyway - one reaps the consequences. To carry the analogy, an admin breaking this serious a rule is like a police officer breaking the law, which makes the case more serious, not less, because there is no recourse to the "ignorance of the law" defense, which if I recall correctly carries little or no weight anyway. One puppy's opionion. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Normally, I'm one of the hanging judges, but I don't think unblocking yourself if you bring the matter up at AN/I or another forum is a particularly grievous offense. It all depends on what you do and why you do it. If you unblock yourself and go your merry way, that's one thing. If you unblock yourself and "turn yourself in" to get more voices in the deliberation, I don't think it is. I think evading is much worse than unblocking yourself. An unblock is an announcement, and it's not as bad as using another account, etc. That's just me, though. Geogre 23:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Proposed decision#Dbiv desysopped - as of now 4 support this, and 3 oppose it. Tom Harrison Talk 01:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Administrators open to recall

I honor User:Crzrussian for being ready to stand by the undertaking he signed, and I'm rather taken aback by the suggestions being made by other users here that his doing so should be traded for an admin RfC, or require community consensus (!), or that the users making the request are violating WP:BITE and I don't know what else. If I shared the view that it means strictly nothing to add oneself to a page headed "These adminstrators are willing to stand for re-confirmation of adminship if six editors in good standing request it", I'd propose deletion of the "open to recall" page as meaningless. Surely any admin can be RfC'd for misuse of the tools without being listed any particular place, and it goes without saying that any admin will be de-sysopped if there's consensus for it — so what's the point of listing oneself on the recall page? Lar's take on the process as appropriately being complex and multi-layered also seems rather at odds with the process section on the recall page itself: ""Just ask, nicely, on the administrator's talk page, and if five others agree, it's done." Bishonen | talk 08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

Blocking is done not as a punishment but as a preventative measure. I believe recall should be on the same basis. This is the first time that Crzrussian has been called to task in this way and he has made his mea culpa. If it is now thought that he will repeat the errors, then recall is in order. If it is considered that he will not, then it seems a counter-productive exercise. Admins are not policemen, and wiki has different rules from police forces, one of them being AGF. Everyone is allowed to make a mistake, as long as it is not perpetuated. Furthermore, an admin's mistake(s) should be seen in context of their general record, not in isolation, as it is likely that those admins who do the most work are statistically also more likely to be the ones who make an error.Tyrenius 09:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Bishie: (and thanks a lot for singing my hair!!! :) ) Most (not all) RfCs relating to admins are hugely contentious, called against the admin's will, and often result in nothing useful at all happening, as the results are blithely disregarded. Sometimes they're pro forma, a prelude to ArbComm...
The idea here is to be different:If I were to get recalled (because 6 users I felt qualified to do so asked for it), and I chose the RfC route (I refer you again to User:Lar/Accountability, where I list 3 choices I can make) what I'm pledging is; that it won't be called against my will, it won't be contentious if I have anything to say about it (I'll actively work to keep it civil), I'll participate politely and in good faith, and I will honor the outcome instead of disregarding it, without forcing the case to ArbCom by being intransigent. That's a big big difference from how most of them go. If the current category (or my template) wording doesn't make it clear that this is a voluntary process and that the admin in question has some say in what it means, but that it's real, and binding, then correction is in order. I don't think it is process heavy. Now, it appears that Crzrussian has chosen the "resign my powers and stand again for adminship;" (in 2 months time apparently) choice of the three I list, as is his perogative. I'd rather see him do an RfC if this is certified, but it's his choice. Hopefully that helps clarify... ++Lar: t/c 14:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
That is correct. If a motion of no confidence is passed, I will surrender my sysop status, to be regained by means of another RfA. The two months is an optional choice I am making to allow a bygones-be-bygones argument. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there any previous cases in which admins on the open to recall page got recalled? Also there has been quite a lot of discussions regarding the bias problems on Arab-Jew related articles especially on the arbCom case for User:His excellency.--Bonafide.hustla 08:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, this is the first. Crzrussian has certified the results. ++Lar: t/c 11:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This recall has nothing whatsoever to do with Arab-Jew related issues. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, everyone

I have surrendered to sysop status after being recalled. I will consider running for RfA again in October. Thanks to all. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loss of Patience

WillC has certianly worn out his/her welcome on Job (professional wrestling). He/She is constantly reverting the page or changing the page to include trivial, if acurate, information. There is a large consensus against the material that he/she is trying to add, and was able to weasel out of a WP:3RR banning on a few technicalities.

Aside from his blatent disregard of the Wikipedia Community's opinion on quality, he/she has also taken it a step further, accusing several contributors of being puppets to another user.

It is my opinion that this child needs a time out, unless there is a way to administer virtual spankings... 'Cuz that'd be even better...

Sorry, I'm just tired of the whineing, and I know everyone else is too.

-NickSentowski 19:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Have you tried dispute resolution ? --pgk(talk) 19:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • WillC said that he made a request for arbitration. I assumed that facet was exhausted. Now that I check, he was simply using arbitration as a threat, and never actually requested it.- NickSentowski 19:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Or not making not-so-subtle personal attacks against him on administrative noticeboards? --InShaneee 19:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I know this is a blatent personal attack, and I've suffered several from his hands already. Sure, I'm getting carried away, but I'd be willing to put money down that I'm not the only one who feels this way. Hell, even if I have to serve a few days to get him to serve his, it'll be worth it to the community. - NickSentowski 19:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
        • That's not how it works. If you keep making personal attacks like that, you'll be serving a block very much alone. --InShaneee 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Would you call this personal attack extreme, InShanee? I don't think so, he doesn't go around calling someone asshole or dumbass all the time right? So, where do you find the criteria for blocking for personal attack met? The answer is nowhere, remember, that according to WP policies, your next step in PA would be walking away, ignoring, trying to persuade the user to restrain from the PA. But certainly not threatening to block him or actually blocking him. We sure do have nice policies and rules here, friendly etc., so please try to stick to them, don't go around threatening editors because you are the demi-god admin. Ackoz 20:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I have tried to reason with these people; we came to a consensus once, and then what was agreed upon by us two was reverted by someone else. I have begged and pleaded for arbitration/compromise, yet all I get from them is reverts without explanation. I too have lost my patience. I expanded the article in question exponentially the last several months, only to have them dismantle it. I post facts. They delete them for fun. WillC 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Nick. I'm tired of WillC as well. He needs to be mature, or just not be on Wikipedia. You don't post facts, you post non-notable things. Comedy isn't used much in jobbing, but you just won't understand that. The Ding Dongs and a few examples in the new ECW isn't enough for a comedy relief section or note. Non-notable doesn't belong on, period. It isn't people just "deleting them for fun". RobJ1981 19:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I also don't appreciate what WillC has done, and I don't agree with their inclusion. The only consensus that was reached was that the info was not notable and should not be included. WillC has called us names and has made untrue accusations. I don't think any of us where denying that your example is fact and has happened, it just wasn't notable for the article. It also appears that WillC has been banned several times already for personal attacks and 3RR violations. Maybe a long-term or permablock should be considered. I just hope that something is done. --Renosecond 22:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the above adequately answers Pgk's question of whether you have tried actual dispute resolution as a "no". Consider making a request for comment or request for mediation (formal or informal). Please only post on administrator boards if administrator tools are required. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that WillC should be fired from wikipedia. --Renosecond 23:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
You will need proof that I called you names and made untrue accusations. My contributions page shows good faith additions and edits to that article months before you got there. And the fact that you all have made it to this page one right after the other to condemn me, just as you did on the page in question, shows you are in cahoots. I did not know that they key to success on Wikipedia was gangs. And the last comment by Renosecond shows just who here is the immature one. WillC 23:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm just giving my opinion, and it was not the best or worst thing that I said right above. You've been banned like 5 times, that's enough to show that you are a volitile editor. And look at what you put in some of the edit summaries, "check with your fellow conspirator", that's name calling. You really need to just get away from the page and just move on. --Renosecond 23:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Saying we are in cahoots, is basically a personal attack in my opinion. You don't know us, so don't make assumptions. People being online and posting around the same time means nothing. RobJ1981 00:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
But setting me up by agreeing to a compromise on my talk page, then seeing a third party come and revert my edits so you can complain about it, smells suspicious. WillC 00:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try one more time. There is incivility going on here, on both sides, and it's obviously very tiresome, but at this stage I don't see anything meriting a block. Try solving the problem amongst yourselves through mediation or an RfC, or no-one is going to give a rodent's hindquarters. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't really even need an arbritrator on the article, there is concensus. The user in question just refuses to see it. Everyone, go to the Job discussion page, and vote. This should make it black or white for him. - NickSentowski 17:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, vote stacking is not how to resolve a dispute. --InShaneee 18:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This entire issue is the result of a large group of editors disagreeing with what few editors believe is notable. What's a better solution if a vote is inadequate? We aren't being puppets, this is a fully legetimate vote. - NickSentowski 18:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
THE LADIES DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH!WillC 20:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT a democracy, and votes are not binding. If there's a number of editors who disagree, try to find a comprimise. --InShaneee 18:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
And if you look directly at the talk page in question, he is the only user that feels his way, and is constantly complaining that everyone that disagrees are cohorts. I, along with others, feel that he is being childish and unreasonable. That's why I brought the discussion here. What is your proposed solution when an arguement is 5-1? I don't feel that 5 users should compromise for one that is particularly stubborn and childish. He also claims that him and I reached a compromise on his talk page... A compromise that I hadn't even read until a few days ago, and didn't agree to. Please, what's next... I just want the arguement closed!- NickSentowski 19:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
From WP:NOT

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes. For an experiment in democracy, visit WikiDemocracy.

There was a discussion, and consensus was reached. The simple result was that it doesn't get it's own category. Merging is still on debate. Let us take the vote, and it will resolve all. - NickSentowski 19:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Voting is not the same thing as consensus. Just because there's more of 'you' then there are of 'them' doesn't mean you automatically get your way, and attempting to enforce such a ruling is simply innapropriate. --InShaneee 19:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I would be willing to try to informally mediate this if all of the Job (professional wrestling) editors want an outside opinion. If this offer is of interest, please drop a short note on my talk page or the article talk page. I also recommend that all of you take a couple of days off from this particular article. Edit out of each other's way for a few days and things should calm down. I also strongly recommend that this be the end of discussion on this page, take it to the article talk page. Newyorkbrad 01:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (non-admin trying to avoid further admin distraction here)
I see it, but it was not done intentionally....perhaps we edited at the same time and mine saved. WillC 20:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I want WillC to be permablocked, this user needs to learn a lesson from trying to be a stubborn pest. Putting "THE LADIES DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH" in this section should be grounds for it, that's just not even close to WP:CIVIL. If something isn't done, then there is a good chance that some frustrated, yet valuable editors (including myself) may just bolt out of here. --Renosecond 20:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Renosecond needs to read some Shakespeare to fully understand the doth protest line....he and his pals go over the edge saying they are not working together against me, moreso than they actually edit the page in question in good faith. If anyone is obsessing over the article, it is them. And who is to say that they aren't female Wikipedians? Lady is a polite term. If not, I say that the GENTLEMEN doth protest too much. The constant maintaining of innocence betrays their guilt in this senseless revert war they are waging. The compromise to merge has been offered and they refuse. WillC 20:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact he denies deleting my talk edit, is proof he can't get along with people. His excuse doesn't hold up. I checked the times and it's almost 2 minutes apart, between my edit and his edit/him deleting my edit on the talk page. RobJ1981 21:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that was some sort of trickery on your part. Your vote was not there when I voted. WillC 00:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Not to mention that WillC has been blocked 5 times for previous offenses. And yes I have read most of Shakepeare's works, but that doesn't matter. Putting a comment like that just isn't civil. --Renosecond 21:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been blocked before because I stand up for what is right against people like you. They've been blocked as much if not more. One man in the right is a majority. WillC 00:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You've been blocked 5 times for misbehaving, don't try to cover it up or put a new spin on it. --Renosecond 02:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. I've temporarily blocked WillC and Renosecond. Hopefully they'll take the time to calm down. --InShaneee 03:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it too late to add a new section to WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a cage match"? Reading the above exchange & Talk:Job (professional wrestling), I can't help not feeling as if I am witnessing one. -- llywrch 21:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC) (who was once a high school, not a professional, wrestler)

[edit] Policy and enforcement thereof

Kelly Martin (talk • contribs) says here, "If you choose to ignore the policy that I have decided is best for Wikipedia, you may find yourself blocked, a state which many Wikipedians find problematic." I understand and appreciate Kelly Martin's intense desire to see the logo dispute resolved, and his/her firm conviction that the decision made is the best for Wikipedia, but everything about this statement strikes me as problematic. Regardless of whether his/her reasoning for taking this position is valid, this is an extremely inflammatory way to put it; it also seemingly goes against the cherished collaborative nature of Wikipedia, in that one user has made a decision and gathered some unknown number of fellow users with the ability to do so, to help enforce it, rather than participate in the process to generate consensus. Powers 19:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify that I am not attempting to have any sanctions placed on Kelly Martin's behavior. I am looking for outside thoughts on the way this was handled as well as a clearer description of whether this is indeed the way Wikipedia wants to handle policy decisions, and why. Powers 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright policy is not up to the users of Wikipedia to decide, it is up to the Foundation to decide. Copyright policy is very clear on this issue and it has been very clear for many months: no fair use image galleries. --Cyde Weys 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. Is Kelly the Foundation?
  2. The Foundation makes copyright law now? I thought that was the domain of Congress, and Wikipedia just followed that. If not, someone should make a correction to the United States copyright law article.
  3. If the policy is so clear, why is this conversation happening?
  4. Why does it seem that Kelly finds him/herself above WP:CIVIL? Those comments to Ltpowers sounded very hostile to me.Attic Owl 23:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
As I have said, I'm not trying to change copyright policy. Where is it stated, beyond Kelly Martin's comment on Wikipedia talk:Logos, that all fair use galleries are verboten on Wikipedia? Powers 19:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It could be assumed from WP:FUC #8, or, really, from any reading of Wikipedia:Fair use that attempts to understand the spirit of our policies and guidelines, as opposed to a reading that is trying to get around them. Jkelly 20:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
A lot of people have cited FUC #8, but it's obvious not everyone interprets it the same way. The distinction between "decorative" and "illustrative" is apparently not as obvious as some people would like to think it is. Powers 20:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", not "Wikipedia, the non-redistributable gallery of fair use images". Ideally all of our content would be free, but we don't do that because it would require too much of a sacrifice of encyclopedic quality. Not so with fair use galleries. --Cyde Weys 20:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So it has been asserted. But why galleries? Where was this discussed, and what was the reasoning behind it? I can suss out bits and pieces here and there, but it's like everyone's going out of their way to avoid stating anything resembling an argument, for no apparent reason. I'm sorry if I sound frustrated, but all I've gotten from Cyde, Kelly, and ed g2s is repeated assertions that "these violate our fair use policy" without much attempt at explaining why they feel that way, and without any attempt at acknowledging that other good-faith users might reasonably disagree. Powers 21:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: to be fair to ed g2s, he did engage in conversation with me on the topic after his edits to Atlantic Hockey, and I appreciate that. However, while he/she adequately explained his/her position, I still don't feel much of a case was made for why that position was unequivocably the right one, aside from the ever-popular FUC 8 and other general statements that "Fair Use is Bad". I recognize both of those tenets, but still it's not really been explained why fair use galleries necessarily and always fall outside the bounds of acceptability. Powers 21:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you understand that Wikipedia fair use policy is not the same as US fair use law? Our fair use policy is narrow because we want to collect free content. Unlikely that a group of fair use images displayed together would meet our fair use exceptions. FloNight talk 23:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I do indeed understand that they are not the same. You say it's unlikely that a group of FU images would meet the exceptions, but fail to explain why, or why it's so universally true so as to impose a block for reverting their removal. Powers 01:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Galleries were determined to be verboten a long time back, because in 99% of all situations they were simply collections of images which were not incorporated into the text. Isolated images have very little "fair use" claim — they are not being use analytically or critically, and they are not terribly transformative in the way that images-plus-encyclopedia often are. In most case they serve no substantial point other than decoration. It is easier in a case like this to just make them verboten. That being said, I've seen maybe one instance in which the gallery was not an inappropriate way to present a sequence of images claimed under "fair use", and was essentially just being used as an organizing structure in a way which was itself critical/analytical (putting them in a sequence). But even then there were others ways to achieve the same effect. I hope that explains the reasoning a little better.
Now in the case of Atlantic Hockey, I think the "gallery" version is clearly not a good use of "fair use"—the images float by themselves disconnected from anything else. In the "table" version, I could see an argument that it makes it easier to identify teams if you are used to just seeing them on TV, or something like that, but even then it strikes me as pretty non-essential, something one would add just to make it look nice, rather than something the article needs in order to function. --Fastfission 23:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
As an observation, if you want to assemble a gallery of images, you will probably find it easier to do over on commons than on en.wikipedia.org. While they have different rules for what they will accept, creating a gallery of "free use" images here won't help anyone in the long run. -- llywrch 00:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that's the first cogent explanation I've seen. So the argument, then, is that galleries are just too generic (perhaps) to enable the constitutent images to qualify as fair use? I can buy that, in most cases -- but I hardly think it's necessarily true, as Kelly Martin and others have implied. However, I'm not wedded to the gallery format -- it's just that when I tried incorporating them into the table as seen in Atlantic Hockey, ed g2s still reverted them, even though they weren't in a gallery, but instead were part of the identification table. The logo is as much a part of the team identity as the mascot is, IMO -- but certain factions seem to think my opinion on that matter doesn't count. Powers 01:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The ghost of RJII/Hogeye/TheIndividualist/IndividualistAnarchist/Lingeron/etc/etc returns to haunt anarchism

User:That'sHot came out of nowhere today and immediately began picking up the tattered banner of fallen soldiers RJII/Hogeye with edits like this, this, this, and this. I'm aware of WP:AGF, WP:BOLD, WP:BITE and related policies, so I apologize if I'm jumping to conclusions. I just think that this is a very obvious case. I had this to say on his talk page:

Welcome to Wikipedia! We're delighted that you've magically stumbled upon our web site, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's marvelous that you already know so much about editing Wikipedia, from wiki syntax to policies and guidelines. It's very rare that new users learn so much on the same day, so congrats! Also, I'm glad to see that you're being bold![35] All of the edits that you're making on anarchism resemble the same kinds of edits made by recently-banned users; it's a relief that their merit is not tarred by the reputation for bad faith of their originators. I'm now confident about the integrity of those edits. It's not every day that new users crop up out of nowhere to continue carrying the torch (well, I guess that does happen every day, but, oh well), so I'm very excited about your enthusiasm, and very happy that you decided to dive in. Please don't hesitate to ask anybody if you have any questions. Good luck, and happy editing! :-) --AaronS 19:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

His response?

That's hot. That'sHot 19:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I got a laugh from that one. :-D This just seems like a basic throwaway account, complete with a picture of Paris Hilton. --AaronS 20:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else, the image on the User page is a copyvio, so I've removed it. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should make AaronS's welcome message a tag to put on these familiar faces with new names. Perhaps we could call it Template:Reincarnation. Geogre 02:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I might be using that one a lot unfortunately, along with Aaron here. The Ungovernable Force 04:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
created. Syntax is {{subst:reincarnation|diff|article}}.

[edit] JzG

This user will not quit. He has vandalized my talkpage numerous times over the past three days

Before that he vandalized my talkpage[39]. Then when I reverted another user assumed he was right and reverted to JzG's version, but realized he was wrong and apologized. I was cordially and said it was alright. JzG has left numerous uncivil comments on my talkpage that can be viewed if one goes through the history of the page. He has also repeatedly been warned. I want him blocked immediately. Tchadienne 22:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not vandalism, and you're obviously not giving us the full story. --mboverload@ 22:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
User appears to be removing warnings concerning his/her editing from his/her talk page. Isopropyl 22:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
That obviously is vandalism. Tchadienne 22:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The protection of your talk page appears to be in part due to your removing of talk page warnings - however, by your contributions I see that you are going on a campaign to get JzG punished in some way, but all that will do is get you blocked again for possible disruption (it was with his agreement that you were unblocked, after all). Cowman109Talk 23:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Behave civil and you won't have to be blocked and your Talk page(s) protected. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Rule #1 of AN/I Tell us the complete story, including your failings, and admit it. Make it concise and easy to read. Present your facts cleanly with diffs and explain the context.
You went about this all wrong, and even if your complaint was valid it may not have been acted on due to your behaviour. --mboverload@ 00:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely endorse JzG's actions on this matter. Far from vandalizing your talk page, I believe he was acting in the best possible manner under provocation, and I commend his patience when dealing with this case. Finally, removing personal attacks, even when they are destined to an undetermined number of users hardly qualifies as "vandalism" imho. I also agree with Mboverload's analysis regarding the one-sided presentation of the case here. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 00:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel it perhaps worth noting I've just removed "ignore... the anti-Semitic vandal JzG" from one of the talkpages of an article Tchadienne has been disputing. Shimgray | talk | 18:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a rant more than anything. It's good to present both sides of the story next time. --Pilotguy (roger that) 00:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seborga hoax

An anon with varying IP addresses beginning with 87 is running a hoax that Nate Richert has taken over from Giorgio I, Prince of Seborga. Examples are here and here. Nothing about this here and the official site of Seborga confirms that Giorgio 1 is still in power here. Can the two pages be semi-protected, please, because this sort of hoax, if word gets about, brings WP into disrepute? BlueValour 23:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • WP:RFPP is for protection requests. Also see WP:RFI. I'm about to cross post this to WP:RFI. ~ c. tales *talk* 03:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotect my talkpage

JzG has protected my talkpage, deleted comments by other users, altered comments I have made, and has incorrectly told a user that I am no longer allowed to vote on WP:RFA. I am not interested in the lies of Zoe and others, who expressed their nonsense pov above. Unprotect my talkpage, block JzG and call it a day. 'nuff said. Tchadienne 00:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop trolling for attention with your comments which we both know no one will take seriously. KEEP IT IN THE SAME SECTION THX --mboverload@ 00:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mantion in Talk:Joseph McCarthy

Mantion (talk • contribs • count), which appears to be a single-purpose account, may be violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA in Talk:Joseph McCarthy. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You may want to check this out

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

Looks like there's trouble a brewin'.JonwithGlasses 02:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like fairly harmless joking. Two socks added, then removed, a blank line, with edit summaries about the tripling of the elephant population. No actual damage on the article, and looks like a one-timer. Fan-1967 03:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odd editor

I had listed this editor up in the whole YourCousin nonsense, but I think it may require a better focus.

This editors first action was to vandalize an article that is on my watch list, hiding it under "Spelling fixes" and then did an actual spelling fix edit, which he may have screwed up in his first edit. The timing of his arrival was way too close to the whole attack put on articles that I watch by YourCousin/Repmart/his socks. I brought this up in one of the IRC channels, but only one person replied, and it would probably be better if it was given much clearer notice. Ryūlóng 03:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked user Lior back with new IP addresses and on Commons as well?

While editing Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, which currently is unprotected, while the main article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is semi-protected, I noticed a strange text inserted by 88.152.85.85 on 6 August and illustrated by a very odd pie chart inserted by 88.154.4.171 on 8 August from Commons. The creator of the pie chart is a new Commons user who calls himself/herself Lior, which is surprisingly similar to Lior, who has been blocked since 17 July on English Wikipedia. As 88.152.85.85 in addition made his/her debut on 4 August by inserting a copyvio picture from Commons that was created by the same Lior, and as the logs of both anon users show that they share Lior's rather unusual interest in Portal:Current events as well as anything to do with Israeli questions, I have a strong suspicion that both IP addresses and Commons Lior is the same old Lior who has re-emerged with a set of new IP addresses. Best regards Thomas Blomberg 03:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked user User:PennyGWoods is back

See above for past transgressions. Just in the last hour she has hit us here and here. If someone can come up with a solution, that'd be wonderful. for now I've protected the talk page on Halle Berry but I can't do that for long. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And this. 3 different IPs (83.15.104.242, 125.244.54.130 and 200.208.207.134). IIRC they are all in singapore but nothing else links the IPs. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Al 3 were open proxies. She's stopped for now. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afro textured hair

The user Anonymous X (talk • contribs) originally created this article, which wasn't done in the proper Wikipedia style, including uses of nonfree images fro mthe web, which, after being deleted, were replaced by unsightly in-article links to those pictures. I therefore cleaned the article up myself, only to have this user (often through an IP address, 24.141.94.61 (talk • contribs), constantly revert from my cleaned up version to, well, this. The user seems to vehemiently prefer his own version, bashing me for having cleaned up "their" article (see talk). I suppose I'm just requesting that several moderators add this article to their watchlists, and prevent the user from continuous reverts to a poorer version. The user themself should also get a warning of some kind, and go on fro mthere if this continues. --FuriousFreddy 04:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Block the clown for disruption. What is this, daycare? — Philwelch t 04:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I have forwarded the article to Afro since it was a repeat of already present information that's already in afro and anything extra should be added there instead of a duplicate article. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 05:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Thygard. I was tired of cleaning up that article.--Firsfron of Ronchester 05:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that redirecting the article was correct. A hairstyle is a far different topic than an type of hair, and there is very little duplicated information between the two. (although, I don't think that "Afro textured hair" is a proper term in and of itself, and the artciel should probably be moved someplace else. But not redirected.). --FuriousFreddy 08:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Alberto Fujimori using name of real person

User is using the real name of a Peruvian political figure, see Alberto Fujimori. According to established policy: a username should not be used to defame other people, companies or groups, regardless of whether they edit Wikipedia. The user is also an obvious vandal, he had tried to move Peruvian national election, 2006 to Delete:Peruvian national election, 2006 with the stated rationale in the edit summary that "I was unfairly excluded". [40]--Jersey Devil 04:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, the user already seems to be "indefinately blocked" for the moving incident.--Jersey Devil 04:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banzai! (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

This user has previously been blocked for personally attacking me and as part of an agreement to be unblocked by the blocking adminstrator agreed to not personally attack me but continues to do so, "equal opportunity dick". I removed his personal attack commentary and that of editor Karatenerd (talk • contribs) from my talk page but now Banzai! (talk • contribs) has the following page User:Banzai!/The_Netscott_Files (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) to keep the personally attacking (and related ) commentary alive as well as provide links towards stalking ends (please check the history of the page). Would an admin kindly prevent this user from continuing to act in bad faith and delete this stalking page? Thanks. (→Netscott) 07:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

“Don't be a dick” is official policy, not a personal attack. I’m only keeping an eye on your Special:Contributions until you stop trying to get me blocked. Please stop wasting everybody’s time, here and elsewhere, with your spurious accusations of personal attacks, stalking, and harassment.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I desire no involvement in this, but I feel it's worth noting that WP:DICK is an essay, not official policy. --Emufarmers(T/C) 06:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's see in this edit we have this edit summary by Banzai! (talk • contribs), "OK, I got rid of those external links (except for the Google search on your username). Happy?)". Seriously I'd appreciate a hand to remove this prime example of harassment on the part of this editor. Thanks. (→Netscott) 07:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I find it hilarious you keep linking to a page describing your bad-faith edits. Other than that, no comment.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 07:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: User:MONGO says he speedy deleted that subpage due to the presence of Google search results for "Netscott" in the page history, even though I’d removed them from the current version. Because that seems to have been Netscott’s primary issue with the page as well, I’ll be sure to omit those links in future revisions. I know you were all dying to hear this update.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 08:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Page is gone...I have a zero tolerance policy of WP:STALK. If Banzai must create a page which "monitors" Netscott, make sure it includes no links to personally indentifing information that is off-wiki and that it also doesn't direct users to off-wiki attack pages.--MONGO 08:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SlimVirgin and a serious abuse of authority

I am an active Wikipedian in good standing. Consistent with the letter and spirit of WP:SOCK, this account was created today for the sole purpose of making the present complaint and obviously has not, nor will it ever, interface with my main account. Sockpuppet? Yes. Abusive? No.

That I feel it is necessary to do this anonymously at all is indicative of what I see as the root of this very complaint: an administrator who has come to regard herself as exempt from the policies that maintain fairness and order here, and who has lately demonstrated a certain eagerness to exercise her power in unethical ways.

[edit] Basics

SlimVirgin appears to have abused her position for the benefit of one editor and the detriment of another, violating her ethical responsibilities to this community in the process.

I've learned that many editors know about this situation generally, since it was first described some weeks ago on another website. Instead of linking to that site, I'll summarize what I've gleaned from forum banter and my own email exchange with the the editor involved, inviting those more familiar with the specifics to follow up and fill in the gaps.

[edit] Details

Recently IPFrehley claimed he had evidence of abusive sockpuppetry on the part of Mantanmoreland.

At one point he uploaded a graphic of some sort which he intended to use as a “visual aid” when making his “case” (he clearly had no idea what the hell he was doing[41]).

After uploading the image but before he could do whatever he was going to do next, IPFrehley was blocked by SlimVirgin and the image deleted (but not until after she apparently let Mantanmoreland have a copy, since he does refer to it on some thread I can't find now).

Based on comments IPFrehley made in another setting, it seems that prior to this, he reached out to a few admins, explaining what he wanted to do and asking for advice. He said the only ones he specifically remembers were Morven and Humus sapiens but thinks there were three or four total requests made. None of them replied to his email, though at least one forwarded it to either SlimVirgin or Mantanmoreland, which is how she managed to intercept and block IPFrehley so quickly when he finally decided to do it by himself (she must have been waiting for it to happen).

When it did, SlimVirgin took advantage of IPFrehley's obvious lack of familiarity with WP:SOCK, because she told him to send his evidence to her via email so she could judge it privately and offline[42].

[edit] Here's where it gets interesting

IPFrehley says he didn't believe SlimVirgin was really interested in the evidence he was sending, so he did something a little diabolical: in the document he emailed SlimVirgin, he hid something that would alert him when it was opened (I don't get that tech stuff so don't ask me more about it), to know if it even got looked at. He says that yes it was opened, not by SlimVirgin but by Mantanmoreland -- 'the same person his evidence accused!!!!! (Here's where he explains how he knew that).

Looking over their contribution histories it's easy to see that Mantanmoreland and SlimVirgin often work in tandem. But that's no excuse for secretly passing him information sent to her in confidence and with the promise that it would be reviewed and judged appropriately.

IPFrehley says he later emailed SlimVirgin asking if there was another explanation (other than what seemed obvious...that she was sending the information to Mantanmoreland) but she refused to answer, except for apparently announcing somewhere that IPFrehley was sending her threats.

I've yet to verify that, but is sounds pretty typical of a pattern that's emerged over time.

I suspect SlimVirgin will argue that because IPFrehley has since been indef banned and even spawned some socks of his own since this episode that his claims should be disregarded.

I would respond by noting that when all this happened, IPFrehley had yet to be banned. Also, IPFrehley openly admits to creating multiple socks specifically attempting to bring this situation to the community, which he apparently tried to do more than once though record of it is gone because he was summary banned and reverted and all diffs permanently deleted from the history.

In my time as a wikipedian, I've grown to respect SlimVirgin's dedication but feel increasing concern over her fading sense of impartiality and even propriety. If what IPFrehley says is true, it represents a grave deception, violation of trust, abuse of power, and act of inexcusable cronyism on the part of SlimVirgin. I'm requesting that her administrative powers be suspended while evidence related to this and other alleged abuses be presented and reviewed by a panel other than the Arbitration Committee, which I do not feel can be impartial in this case. --SecondMostLikely 06:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responses

A sockpuppet created merely to bring accusations against a specific editor? Isn't that practically the definition of a disruptive sockpuppet? If you're an active Wikipedian in good standing, then come and voice your concerns and complaints as an active Wikipedian in good standing. I'll leave the merits of your case to others to hash out, but I don't think you'll get far asking for an administrator's powers to be taken away by your wishes, particularly since you don't feel that the Arbitration Committee is impartial to this case. If the ArbCom can't judge this, then who will? An unruly mob? (Never mind that the ArbCom, practically speaking, is the only body likely to perform a de-sysopping in this sort of case.) --Emufarmers(T/C) 06:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, Emufarmers, if the user has a reson to fear reprisals, then surely that it is a valid use of a sock-puppet account. I have not read through the complaint in enough detail to comment on the complaint yet. Johntex\talk 06:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
From WP:SOCK: "Multiple accounts may have legitimate uses, but you must refrain from using them in any way prohibited to sock puppets, and from using one account to support the position of another, the standard definition of sock puppetry." In my first sentence, I disclose and make clear this account will not be used in any other setting to support my real account. Besides, what needs to be judged are facts. I'm just presenting them. Who I am couldn't be less relevant.--SecondMostLikely 06:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
My guess is that the above is User:Gnetwerker, a number of whose sockpuppet accounts I've blocked recently (and who enjoys starting threads on AN/I to cause trouble); or User:Homeontherange, who has previously created a sockpuppet, User:Schroedinger_the_Cat, to comment on the IP Frehley block; or User:WordBomb, the original IP Frehley account holder.
IP Frehley was an account set up by indefblocked User:WordBomb. I blocked WordBomb because he posted what he thinks are personal details about User:Mantanmoreland. When asked for an assurance that he wouldn't do it again, in exchange for an unblock, he responded by posting the details once more on his talk page, so that was that. He started making allegations by e-mail that Mantanmoreland had used a sockpuppet account. I like Mantanmoreland and think he's a good editor, so I didn't want to have to judge whether to block him for sockpuppetry. I therefore handed the situation over to FloNight as an uninvolved admin, and she has been dealing with it since then, together with Fred Bauder who has conducted a check user and, I believe, has blocked some of the accounts WordBomb/IP Frehley set up. That's it in a nutshell. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply SlimVirgin. But unless I missed it, you didn't address the problem, which was the accused violation of trust at best, policy at worst.
Did you in fact share IPFrehley's confidential email with Mantanmoreland, and if not, how did he come to open the document attached to it? --SecondMostLikely
Without regards to this particular case which I found bordeline incomprehensible, this is a clear application of the segregation and security section. Although "I really don't want blow-back" isn't explicitly mentioned there, it's clear from context that it is an acceptable reason to use a sock. This doesn't mean I like it much. - brenneman {L} 06:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't see this as a fair use of that; the segregation and security bit seems more for conflicts that might emerge from edits to an article. I don't want to distract from the merits (or demerits) of this case, though, so I won't push it further. --Emufarmers(T/C) 06:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This stuff is classic trolling. There was an incident, a minor incident which did not amount to much. Based on that minor incident a number of administrators have wasted a great deal of time due to the agitation of this editor. There is no end to it, but nevertheless there never was much to it. Fred Bauder 06:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Fred. But unless I missed it, you didn't address the problem, which was the accused violation of trust at best, policy at worst.
Do you condone the sharing of one editor's confidential email with another s/he is accusing of wrongdoing? Do you share confidential email? --SecondMostLikely 14:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The allegation of breach of implied confidentiality is serious though, and merits response. (Not necessarily investigation -- but response: some explanation or justification.) It is not OK for an administrator to tell or imply to someone that they will keep private communications private, and then leak them to the other side of a dispute. If one is going to act as an impartial administrator, one must not do things like that. --FOo 07:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The allegation is worthless, considering the source. The allegation can safely be ignored. Move along. --Golbez 08:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Golbez. But unless I missed it, you didn't address the problem, which was the accused violation of trust at best, policy at worst.
Do you condone the sharing of one editor's confidential email with another s/he is accusing of wrongdoing? Do you feel policy should apply to all editors equally, or just case by case?--SecondMostLikely 14:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll answer that question when it becomes relevant. --Golbez 18:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Editors who are obvious trolls who are playing 'gotcha' and wasting our time shouldn't be surprised to find themselves blocked. Concur with Fred; there's no reason to waste our time here. If a useful editor had been blocked, I'd be more interested in the ensuing discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply TenOfAllTrades. But unless I missed it, you didn't address the problem, which was the accused violation of trust at best, policy at worst.
And may I express my deepest sense of disappointment at your apparent belief that WP policy be administered on a sliding scale, depending on how "interesting" one finds an editor?
Shame on you.--SecondMostLikely 14:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think some context is needed here. Fred discovered that Mantanmoreland was using a second account and editing a particular article with both accounts. He warned Mantanmoreland to stop, and as far as I know, he has. WordBomb, and later Homey for some reason, decided Mantanmoreland had to be publically pilloried, filing two RFCUs (which were declined) and asking Fred (on more than one occasion I believe) to make a more public statement, which he has declined to do. Unless you share the opinion that a good editor who made one mistake and stopped after warning should be publically crucified, there's really no reason to entertain this discussion any longer. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is anyone even discussing this here? What one does with one's emails in one's own business. I don't even know if I believe what this sockpuppet is saying. I do know, however, that IPFrehley should have been blocked on sight for an unacceptable username. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I blocked SecondMostLikely. [43] There is an ongoing harassment of Mantanmoreland (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and SlimVirgin (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). This may be acceptable on Wikipedia Review, not welcome here. These allegations have been reviewed and my decisons explained in detail to WordBomb and Homey. Nothing is being hiden or ignored. It has been raised several other times on AN/I. It has been noted on a current RFA raised. The user needs to use standard dispute resolution protocal not parade a caravan of abusive sockpuppets/meatpuppets through the talk pages of our community. FloNight talk 15:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Phr (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organized attacks against user:rctxtreme

This user is the target of organized vandalism. He is referred to as "Richard" or "Richard Wang" by the vandals. Looking at their edits, they appear to be some school bullies. Two users, P0wnt (talk • contribs) and R1ch4rd 1s 4 m0r0n (talk • contribs), have already been blocked as a vandalism-only accounts and I am requesting that the following accounts are blocked as well. I have listed them in order from most recent attack:

Annete Brewster (talk • contribs)
Surfer dale (talk • contribs)
Ryu Takanashi (talk • contribs)
Dennis Xin (talk • contribs)
Annihi Later (talk • contribs), a sockpuppet of Annihi later (talk • contribs)
Annihi later (talk • contribs), has only made 6 edits unrelated to this incident in addition to 16 attacks.
144.131.71.175 (talk • contribs)
Christopher Mills (talk • contribs)
A dot a red spot (talk • contribs)
Miss Kelly Potter (talk • contribs), whose talkpage includes an inflammatory poem about "Richard"
Ming sect4 (talk • contribs)
Cenandor (talk • contribs)
218.214.47.219 (talk • contribs)
Cenabee (talk • contribs)
Bob the moving monkey (talk • contribs), has not directly insulted "Richard", but appears to be sided with the vandals
143.238.96.93 (talk • contribs), possibly the IP of Wizard1973 (talk • contribs)
Wizard1973 (talk • contribs), may be an account reserved until the above IP is banned?
60.229.164.120 (talk • contribs)
Ukifitutios (talk • contribs)

I have checked each of the accounts' edits (blah), and unless noted above, each account has no edits that are not vandalism or attacks. Hyenaste (tell) 08:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like User:Edgar181 (him mostly) and I have blocked most of the accounts. This looks like a serious issue that needs further investigation. Yanksox 11:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yup. I went through each user's contributions and they are all in fact attacks on one user. All have been indef blocked. One IP is already blocked, the others have been quiet for awhile, so I didn't do anything with them. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you both! I hate to see Wikipedia abused, used as some childrens' flamefest. Hyenaste (tell) 21:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Howard (American webcomic artist) and WP:BLP

Users User:Zaver, User:Vash293, and User:Dejavood0o seem to be have a different understanding of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons than I do. Apparently they believe WP:V and WP:RS include trash talk from bloggers. Can this page be protected, users be blocked, something? -- Dragonfiend 09:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The page is sprotected. -- Hoary 09:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm not sure how much it will help as at least one of those users has an account older than 4 days, but it's worth a try. -- Dragonfiend 09:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cannot export pages

I can't export the full page history using Special:Export. Anyone know what's wrong?? --TheM62Manchester 10:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably better suited for the technical Village Pump but as far as I know, I thought it was disabled for performance reasons? --james(talk) 10:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It was recently re-enabled. Possibly disabled again? (Liberatore, 2006). 12:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Feedyourfeet

A while back there was some argy-bargy with Feedyourfeet (talk • contribs) whitewashing his Talk page. He is at it again (no surprise there) and accusing me of a personal attack for criticising his hiding his Talk archive (where he puts all evidence of controversy suyrrounding his behaviour if he doesn't simply delete it) behind a full stop. Yes, if you go to User Talk:Feedyourfeet, just under the "click here to leave me a message" text, on the left, there is a full stop which is a link to a partial archive of warnings and other critical comments. The real comedy here is that he's been engaged in a war with User:Rebecca over - guess what? - removing the comments he leaves on her Talk page! My irony meter burned out when I saw it... I'm not sure if it's an incident, as far as I'm concerned it's mainly another example of an obviously opinionated editor being determined to portray themselves as whiter than white, but if anyone uninvolved feels like helping him with some constructive comments then I'd appreciate it. Just zis Guy you know? 12:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been conversing with him about this, and he's on his final warning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, what a mess. I've blocked him after warning him about removing warnings, and had to threaten to protect his talk page to get him to stop him from "archiving" the conversation that led to his blocking. He now has an {{unblock}} on his talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No surprises there. I've told him before, it's OK to archive finished discussions, but this business of the archive hidden behind a full stop is simply trolling. Just zis Guy you know? 14:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ted1751

Ted1751 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) is a prolific libel vandal (All contributions have been removed by oversight due to their content). Edits were to UK sports and media figures, alleging criminal convictions, usually of a sex crime. In one instance the vandal had gone to the trouble to create a webpage on Freewebs in order to provide a "reference" for his libel. He is now complaining about being blocked as General Tojo. I have invited him to email me from his Tiscali email account for an explanation. Fred Bauder 14:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

He has now created Rob6969 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), again most vandalism was per se libel and has been removed. Fred Bauder 16:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disproportionate force

It amuses me... this essentially is the reason my talkpage is protected... administrators admit JzG was out of line but reason that indefinitely protecting my talkpage, with the stated reason of making me leave, is okay because I wasnt being fair. I wasnt being "nice" to him. Just for the record, when are you planning on unprotecting my talkpage? Or how about, when can I vote on RFAs again, since JzG's cronies are now telling Mets501 that I cant vote. Is there even any imaginary rational for my talkpage being protected or is this just a case of "yah, way to sock it to him"? Tchadienne 16:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are counting me as one of "JzG's cronies", then I just[44] told him the exact opposite of what you said here. There's no reason why you can't "vote" in an RfA, but the closing 'crat will no doubt take into account the fact you previously set up a sockpuppet account to flout your block and tried to vote with it in that same RfA. See also [45]
As to your talk page being unprotected, would you undertake not to breach policy or remove any future warnings you may receive from it? I've a feeling that would be a prerequisite for unprotecting it. It would with me anyway. --Guinnog 16:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threat from User:Keevaymusic

User:Keevaymusic, who has been involved in heavy edit warring over Catman Cohen, posted legal threats on his own talk page and on Talk:Catman Cohen. NawlinWiki 20:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As a preliminary measure, I have protected the page and stubbed it. Any other admin is welcome to undo/revert/whatever, I'm just trying to diffuse this before it becomes a huge problem. --Chris (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it edit warring. I solely added POV related tags yesterday. Today: someone, for the first time, actually cleaned up uncited/POV content. Previously all content was a mirror of the subjects personal webpage. Apparently the subject is demanding his official content only and blanking in protest. The subject is yelling libel claims, yet no one but him has actually ADDED any content. ccwaters 20:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked for posting legal threats.--MONGO 20:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • After reviewing the (weird) prior article, and doing a Google search (181 unique hits), I think the listing fails WP:MUSIC and should be posted for AFD. NawlinWiki 20:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected and reverted the article. Feel free to nominate for AfD. --Chris (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible socks of User:Drosenbe

Below is the corespodence I had with ptk✰fgs and he recomended I report my problems here...

Re: Drosenbe I am Angelo Liguori of Strange But Surf. I have been the victim of harrasment since by the person behind the banned aliases drosenbe, blacktooth, drosenbe626, smellyfatboy and others since April of 2006. Wikipedia noticed the spamming and sock puppertry of this user drosenbe enuf to ban him and his alias' The history of the Surf Music pages show that quite clearly. An attempt is now made being made to portray me as Blacktooth, one of his many aliaes.

I need not point out his offences against Wikipedia, nor I do need to establish the truth of my identity. Wikipedia has figured it out, without my help. I have had this discussion via email with Soundclick, My Space and other sites that he abuses the freedom they allow him to slander and harrass me, my band and others. They either has banned him, forced him to remove slanderous comments or simply ignored his threats of legal action.

I dont not want to cause trouble for him, I just want it to stop.

Not only for my band, but for all the bands that work hard to establish themselves in history. I am quite aware of the rules and know that my band has not yet reached the level of fame to warrant grand statements in history. I am also aware that this user's only need to be part of Wikipedia is to continue to harras me and the entire surf genre. He has been banned from every single surf music site I can think of. I commend Wikipedia for the actions taken so far, for I cannot keep defending the enire genre of surf rock forever. Thank you for your time, I have tried to email other Wikipedians to discuss this but most of the editors do not have an email addy listed. Please help.

Angelo Liguori aka Marbles Mahoney Drums/Guitar/Media Strange But Surf

I can be reached by any of these methods...

strangebutsurf@yahoo.com ranchodeangelo@yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marbles Mahoney (talk • contribs) .

Where is someone claiming that Blacktooth is you? —ptk✰fgs 19:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion page... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blacktooth&action=history were edited as shown in the history by his latest sock puppet that you banned... $taypuffmarshmellowman - the revision can be seen here. I corrected it, but I should not have coreected a discussion page and he should not have edited it either. Most of the editors of these pages do not have emails and leaves me very little recouse but to have this public discussion.

The page was posted by wikipedia to alert people to his vandalism, but was changed to use my name instead of his. Check the history, its there.

This harrasment must stop. I will supply you with whatever help you need to protect not only me, but wikipedia from this continued vandalism and harrasment.

he has also posted this self promotion page... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_Dave using the name... Smellyfatboy, yet anothe sock puppet of drosenbe. Wikipedia is under attack from this vandal, as am I and I am ready willing and able to help in any way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marbles Mahoney (talk • contribs) .

Thank you for your time.

I would recommend that you make a post at Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. If this is a user who is continually using sockpuppets and harrassing you, you will need an administrator to deal with it. I am not an administrator (and I also did not ban any of his other accounts; I merely reported them). I realize that you were not the only one to edit my post at Blacktooth's talk page. No harm done, just avoid editing others' comments in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marbles Mahoney (talk • contribs) .

I am not sure what exactly Marbles Mahoney means when he says this user is harrassing him. However, it appears to me that User:Smellyfatboy and User:Imnotrappaport are sockpuppets of User:Drosenbe. User:Drosenbe626 and User:Blacktooth were blocked *after* a sockpuppet accusation, but Blacktooth's block was for another reason. User:$taypuffmarshmellowman is another likely sockpuppet of the same user, blocked for username choice. All of these users have focused their edits almost entirely on adding information about someone named Dave Rosenberg, or posting uncivil comments about Angelo Liguori.
There may be other sockpuppet accounts. I've begun to lose track. —ptk✰fgs 20:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flooding of multiple articles with external link to technical slide bank

User:Gfmer has added to about 60 multiple medical articles an external link to the "Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research". These links are to pages that contain no further information on the topic but are merely collection of pictures of patients and Xrays. There is no introduction to indicate what features are being shown or whether the images represent common or rare variations of a disease. Hence only a specialist will find the image of direct use, and even as a non-specialist GP many of the pictures seem mere curiosities and fail to add understanding about the conditions. So whilst teh website is a useful resource for a doctor looking for specialist images, it is inapprioproate material for the general readership and fails to give any additional describtion. Could an admin consider doing the bulk roll-back tool you have to these 60 odd pages ? David Ruben Talk 23:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TonyDanza

There's a new user TonyDanza who spammed Airplane!. I'm not so concerned about the spam, but this is probably an inappropriate username unless this is the real Tony Danza showing up to shill for some travel website.

Atlant 13:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Username blocked; the editor can always use his (I presume) talk page if there's good reason to lift. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! And if it really is Tony Danza, get his autograph! ;-)
Atlant 18:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IP 24.57.20.241

Obscene vandalism.

User has stopped for now. Please use WP:AIV for future reports, thanks—and, don't forget to sign your posts by using four tildes (~~~~) at the end. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:71.74.209.82

Disruptive editor repeatedly removing sourced material from Illegal immigration to the United States, or adding commentary, personal opinions, etc. Suspected sockpuppet using several IP addresses. As I am editing this article I am not blocking him/her for disruption. I would appreciate if another admin takes a look. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Other IPs involved:
Possible sockpuppet :

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It would also be worthwhile to look at the Anchor baby page, and its discussion page. Same individual using multiple accounts, same pattern. First he claims that something is not sourced; then when a source is given, he claims not to be able to use the source because of its format; once its reformatted he claims its just the opinion of some individual (who happens to be a Congressman on a .gov site). He can’t win the argument, but he certainly will not allow himself to loose either. Brimba 02:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Jossi has harassed me about not having a user account until I got one. He has already posted an RfC calling me disruptive and been immediately turned down. Now he is threatening me with blocking my account because Ive deleted content which is off topic (he claims that deletion of content is vandalism when, in fact, it is only vandalism when done in an attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia - that was pointed out to him and he is still threatening to block me). I see his actions as an ongoing abuse of his admin powers and am seeking a resolution. I admit that I have logged on anon as well as in this user account, but I got my user account today and have sometimes forgotten to log on. Let me make that clear..I edited anonymously for some time before getting a user account (it was during this time that Jossi was harassing me about it). I got a user account today and have, when making edits since then, sometimes forgotten to log in. However, while admins have had plenty of opportunity to show evidence of me engaging in Sockpuppet abuse (which isn't just editing from different IPs, but detailed abuse as in the Sockpuppet page), they have failed to do so. Further, I have made no secret of being the same person and whenever I felt confusion might exist or when I was asked, I clarified. On one occassion, I posted in Illegal immigration in the United States to clarify that a post came from me when I had forgotten to log on and that explanation was immediately deleted by Jossi (and has not been undeleted). Seeing my explanation immediately deleted, I assumed that the best thing to do when it happens is just let it go.Psychohistorian 02
30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Psychohistorian confirmed that he is the same person as 1.74.209.82 Diff ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that, contrary to what Psychohistorian asserts, I have not refactored anything from talk:Illegal immigration to the United States. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Please note, contrary to Jossi's last comment, that comment about having failed to log in was made by me at 13:28 8 August 2006 and was deleted by Jossi at 13:44 8 August 2006 and remains, at least at this time, in the talk page history.Psychohistorian 03:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Further, I have made no secret of being the same person and whenever I felt confusion might exist or when I was asked, I clarified.

From a discussion on User talk:MER-C concerning this individual

Section: Recent edits to 198.97.67.59 I don’t know how easy this is to follow, but I am trying bring for the relevant parts of the discussion:

WHOIS tells me that the two distinct IPs above are unrelated - one from Ohio and one from Virginia. I'll get rid of the notices MER-C 02:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you and I am strongly considering getting an account. Its just that I didn't feel like submitting to someone threatening or pushing me into it and I didn't really, and still don't, see a reason for it71.74.209.82 03:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

At no time has he/she denied ownership of the other offending addresses. But appeared happy to allow you to reach that conclusion on your own, and failed to correct the misunderstanding. - from Brimba

Ahh, looks like the IPs weren't as unrelated as I thought. On further inspection (using the City link at the bottom of an IP's talk page) are about 60km away from each other. The Virginia IP was registered to an Time Warner subsidary in Virginia. (compare [46] [47] and [48] ). Therefore it is possible that they are the same person and given the evidence above it is likely. I think the correct conclusion to be reached is:

   
“
 One of the employees at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base also edits Wikipedia at home with an IP of 71.74.209.82.
   
”

Once it was clear they where the same person:

Sorry to confuse you on that. I do post from the different IPs. I have not tried to mislead anyone on that fact. However, the Wright-Patterson IPs are shared by many other users as well.

Thanks Brimba 03:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Brimba claims that I was happy to have people be confused. Though, as Ive pointed out, I took it on my own initiative to clarify the issue whenever I thought the confusion existed (such as the edit I mentioned above to the talk page of Illegal immigration in the United States). I have to ask, why would I take it on my own initiative to clarify any confusion if I was happy to have people be confused?Psychohistorian 03:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You have been warned at least thirteen times for disruption through all your IP addresses, so this is not about confusing others, but about interfering with the editing process. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You have claimed that I was disruptive because I deleted or edited an article in accordance with policy - an article, incidentally, which you have exhibited a stake in which is counter to my own opinions. You made an RfC on it and was immediately turned down. You are attempting to use your admin status in this regard as a weapon with which you can align the content of the article with your politics.Psychohistorian 03:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The RfC is still ongoing. I posted it yesterday and editors have yet to comment. As for the deletion of properly sourced material without discussion, just because it opposes your POV, and as these were done using four or five different IP address, I would argue that thess had the imprimatur of disruption, upon which I warned these anon users (that now we know are all one person). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see where Jossi has used, much less abused, his admin tools in this matter. A content RfC is never inappropriate, though sadly they are often ignored. -Will Beback 05:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
A content RfC is never inappropriate, agreed. An admin threatening an editor with having their account blocked for deleting content (which does not violate the 3RR) is, however. Let's be clear here, there are three issues. 1.) Harassment of anon editors (all that has been addressed was whether I was engaging in sockpuppetry, the harassment has not been addressed yet, though the evidence is in the Illegal immigration in the United States article), 2.) Whether or not I've been disruptive (and there is no evidence of that which has been brought forth), 3.) Threatening to block me because I deleted content in accordance with policy. All three accusations, especially when taken together, make it clear that Jossi is attempting to use his admin powers to control content in that article. Further, Will Breback, Brimba, and Jossi have all participated in editing that article and all share the same politics on the issue. MER-C is the only admin who has posted on this issue who does not have an emotional connection to the content of the article. I am looking for third parties who do not have an attachment to the content of the article to examine this issue.Psychohistorian 11:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
And you say that you do not have an "emotional connection" to this article? You edited under several IPs, added your opinions to several articles in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and deleted material that was very well referenced just because it opposed your viewpoint. Many editors warned the different IPs you used about these deletions and behavior, which you ignored. As for my actions, these are there for the community to see: I have welcomed you, explained to you how to merge articles, how to add references, etc. as well as explaining to you the futility of editwarring. I have twice in the past 24 hours extended an invitation to edit this article amicably, that you rejected on the basis of your assessment of my integrity as an editor. I invite you for the third time to collaborate in this article amicably, to avoid making comments about other editors motives while ignoring yours, to desist from deleting properly sourced material from articles, and avoid inserting your opinions in the text of articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I welcome any third party not already attached to the article to examine my behavior in this matter. While we disagree regarding WP:NPOV and WP:NOR (I feel that you've violated those policies and you feel that I have), I have never threatened to lock another editor out of an article because I didn't agree with their politics. While we might disagree on what is not relevant material (sourced or not), I have never threatened to lock another editor out of an article because I didn't agree with his politics. Of course I have an emotional attachment to the article, but, again, I have never threatened to lock another editor out of an article because I didn't agree with their politics. You have done so. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to prove that such a block is warranted and, so far, you haven't done that. I welcome your attempt to do so using hard data, not baseless accusations. As for using different IPs, what this boils down to is whether or not editing anonymously is allowed by policy (it is) and whether or not third party administrators feel that I have done so to engage in sockpuppetry (the only one who has weighed in on the issue states that he doesn't believe I have). I don't believe you would have asked for a peaceful resolution on this matter if I didn't tell you that I was going to raise the issue. I believe you would have continued with your abuse if I hadn't told you that I was going to make an official complaint. Finally, I am convinced that you are looking to resolve it under the radar now so that you can continue with your abuse later.Psychohistorian 16:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
If you are so convinced about my future actions, then there is no much to discuss, is there? For the record, the reason for my invitations to you to edit amicably, these were not done because of your complaint (which by the way I invited you to make when you first accused me of harassment) but because I believe that edit warring can be avoided when editors collaborate and respect each other event after a heated dispute. Also for the record, note that each and every one of my additions to the article were backed up by detailed references from scholarly journals, books and articles, and in complete adherence with Wikipedia content policies. So here is my extended hand again: I invite you to collaborate on this and other articles amicably within the boundaries of WP content policies and assuming good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you believe that, in harassing me about being an anon editor and threatening to block me for deleting content in accordance with policy, that you did anything wrong? I don't believe you do. If you don't, then there is nothing disinclining you from doing it again in the future. You have the power to do it again. So, I can't believe that you won't do it again. I could easily agree to a truce if you did believe your actions were wrong. And creating content, updating content, and deleting content in accordance with policy is what editing is about. It is inevitable that different editors have different understandings of policy so it is inevitable that wat one editor does, another will view as against policy. What should not be part of the editing process is an admin making threats against a user to use his admin rights so that that admin can have an article reflect his politics. My complaint is your misuse of your position as an administrator. My concern and why I cannot accept a truce at this time is that you don't see anything wrong with that misuse.Psychohistorian 20:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. On the context of your actions what I did was not "misuse" of admin powers. I did not apply a block, ony warned your multiple anon IPs about disruptive edits (joining the voices of many other admins and editors that warned you of the same). When I saw the need for a block, I placed a request in this page. FYI, I intend to continue editing this article but I refuse to edit war with you. Deletions of sourced material, addition of personal opinions, and otherwise dirsuptive behavior on your part that may warrant a blocking action will be reported here at WP:ANI for other admins to act upon. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You can continue to talk about me being disruptive, but the fact is that when the one and only admin who was not working on the article examined my actions, he ruled against you. For your part, you've failed, even here, to provide -evidence- of me being disruptive, you've only given baseless accusations. I sincerely hope that you do report my "disruptive" behavior here, at least that will force you to provide such evidence to third parties.Psychohistorian 20:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
No admin "ruled against" me. A request that I placed on WP:RFPP intended to curtail what I considered disruptive anon edits, was rejected on the basis of "not enough activity to warrant semi-protection". On the other hand, eleven editors and admins warned you about disruption as can be seen in the talk pages of the IPs that you edited under: :71.74.209.82 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), 198.97.67.58 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), and 198.97.67.57 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
There are nine relevant posts in these accounts. Many of them are from the same admins who all have an emotional attachment to the article. So, how did 11 admins create nine posts and many of them have more than one post? Is this a "breads and fishes" thing? Of those nine posts, three of them are part of the anon editing harassment. Those are Brimba's post to 71.74.209.82 at 06:57 7 August 2006, Will Breback's post to 198.97.67.58 at 16:22 August 2006, and Will Breback's post at 16:23 4 August 2006 to the same account. Of those nine posts, three of them I'll fess up to. They were a result of my not knowing certain policies and, once I was aware of them, what I was doing that lead to them stopped. Those are Will Breback's 21:00 23 July 2006 post to 71.74.209.82 and both of the posts from Abstract Idiot to 198.97.67.58 (both of these were me deleting improperly placed claims of sockpuppetry - they had no evidence with them - Mer-C explaind the proper way to delete these tags and I stopped doing it). Of the remaining three posts, two were from Jossi and were part of the issue being discussed here. One was from Bachrach44 20:28 2 August 2006 to 71.74.209.82 and about him deleting a direct quote I had added to the Illegal immigration in the United States article on the grounds that that direct quote violated POV (how can a sourced direct qoote violate POV??).Psychohistorian 00:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are right... all these warning messages by User:Wisden17, User:Tapir Terrific, User:Tawkerbot2, User:Will Beback, User:Dark Tichondrias, User:Brimba, User:Bachrach44, and myself and ohers were all mistaken. You are 100% right, you did not disrupt Wikipedia, you did not add your own comments to articles and you did not delete sourced material from articles that you did not like. We are all a bunch of idiots, that have nothing else to do than harass a newbie. In addition we are all emotionally attached to this article and do nothing but push our pro-immigration POV, while you only want to enhance Wikipedia and impress upon all of us the principles of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:NOT that you have studied in detail over the short life of your editing experience in this project. We shall now all emulate your impeccable editing credentials and allow you to edit all these articles that you are so emotionally detached from, un-hinibited and without being harassed by abusive sysops. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
First off, some of those IPs you mentioned are shared by more than one user - a fact which you are well aware of (and the user accounts are clearly tagged as such). I posted the relevant posts. Second, the other posts you mentioned were not warnings (for example, Dark T's post is, "Your argument with another anonymous IP user on the Talk:White (people) is very hard to follow if you do not sign your posts with an account name. It's harder to distinguish two IP numbers than it is to distinguish two user names. To sign your posts after you create an account simply type in --Psychohistorian 02:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC) two bars and four tildes. Wikipedia will automatically sign your post with the user name you created" - not a warning). Your misrepresentation of these facts is an indication that you're not done playing games.Psychohistorian 01:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
As stated in Talk:Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States I am taking a break from actively editing that article, because it has become too toxic for my liking. I will continue monitoring the article in the event that material that is properly sourced is deleted. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I was not confused by Psychohistorian's actions, I just simply overlooked something and jumped to the wrong conclusion. The discussion on my talk page wasn't about the user's edits but the allegations of sockpuppetry, which have been resolved for all I can see. Editing at work and at home under different IPs is fine, as long as it stays clear of WP:SOCK. I'm going to step away from this issue because it is now a content dispute on a topic that I know little about because I live on the other side of the world. MER-C 09:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tobias Conradi ( again )

See User_talk:Tobias_Conradi#Civility_warning. This user Tobias Conradi (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has went back to being less than civil. (here's one example, there are others, check his contribs: [49]) I warned him about it and got some incivil comments back. Based on his past history I blocked him for 24 hours to give him time to think but he resumed incivility to me and to other admins that turned up and counseled that he calm down. So I increased the block to 48 hours. According to him I'm an abusive admin who is out to buy him and I have a Napoleonic complex which I've suborned into harrasing him personally. According to me, I'm just doing what we're supposed to do, keep an eye on users with a past history of difficulty with our norms. So... here I am. You decide... I invite review of this block. ++Lar: t/c 07:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive119#User:Tobias_Conradi for more background on a previous time we had a flareup. ++Lar: t/c 07:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm hardly an impartial party in this, but I agree that it's far overdue for someone to tell Tobias what we expect in the way of civility. --Golbez 08:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I would never personally block an editor in response to rudeness to me. However, I cannot find fault with this block either. His behavior was clearly out of line. Friday (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree for blocking for "personal attacks." One reason I do is that the person who makes them is usually breaking a number of other rules and conventions at the same time. Take this guy: he seems to be here to disrupt. He came to DRV shadow boxing, throwing jabs at nothing, just begging for someone to quarrel with. That's disruption. It isn't even civility, as much as it is hysteria, if not outright paranoia. I support the block, as he has had multiple occasions to choose between writing articles and writing attacks, and he has chosen the latter. Geogre 22:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


I've been looking back through his history. Previous disputes include an article which stated, in its entirety: "Eisenkappl is located in Austria." I have not the words. Just zis Guy you know? 22:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block of User:Cardsplayer4life by Kelly Martin

I'm seeking a rough consensus to unblock User:Cardsplayer4life. Background information follows. This is quite condensed and I may well have omitted something important. I encourage you to do your own research before commenting.

User:Kelly Martin declared that there was now a policy that anyone who reverted edits to a certain state would get blocked. [50] When questioned how this new policy came about, Kelly explained:

"I have now formulated a policy as a result of the discussion. You may continue the discussion if you wish, but the policy is now made, and will be enforced." [51]

"Anybody on Wikipedia can attempt to set policy. I just happen to be good at actually doing so, especially in the copyright arena, and so I have decided to do so in this case. If you choose to ignore the policy that I have decided is best for Wikipedia, you may find yourself blocked, a state which many Wikipedians find problematic." [52]

When Kelly was criticized for what seemed to one person like a "unilateral and intimidating" statement she explained:

"It was unilateral, and it was intended to be intimidating." [53]

User:Cardsplayer4life disagreed with Kelly and reinserted images she had removed with the edit summary:

"According to the policy: "Sports team logos may be used in articles or aticle sections where the team is discussed", so logos are ok as long as teams are discussed. (they are))" [54]

Kelly reverted this edit with the rollback tool [55] and blocked Cardsplayer4life. I feel a block is not necessary and I asked Kelly if she would consider lifting it. [56] I've waited an hour and she seems not to be online so I'm taking the issue up here instead. Would there be a rough consensus for unblocking User:Cardsplayer4life?

I have no opinion on the policy question. Using the team logos in this way is, as far as I can tell, well within the boundaries of fair use law but it's still something we may wish to avoid. In non-emergency situations we usually set policy by discussion and consensus rather than fiat and intimidation. Haukur 10:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my block. Our policies on copyright have long supported aggressive blocking of violators. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
In the case of long-standing clearly defined copyright policies but I don't feel this is such a case. I've long been opposed to us having galleries of unlicenced images, see my post here, for example: [57] but I don't think the case with the sports team logos is as clear as you imply. Whether the logos come in a batch ahead of a list or one-by-one as a part of a list does not seem to me like a crucial distinction. I'd probably tend to side with you in avoiding the batches but I don't feel we should block those who disagree. Haukur 12:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair use has always been explicit in this regard: images may be used only for illustrating the subject. Image galleries, userboxes, user space and so on have never been acceptable places to put unfree images. Sure, we'd love it if the logos were released into the public domain so we could have those nice image galleries that magazines have, but as I understand it we have had legal advice on this from Brad, and his legal advice is that we have to take a conservative approach or rik having our asses sued. Just zis Guy you know? 12:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Can I delete Category:Pokémon images and block anyone who reverts me? Haukur 13:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
No, but if you see a gallery of fair-use images in a Pokémon article, delete it on sight. Of late there's been a fair amount of effort on behalf of the Pokémon Wikiproject to reduce the use of fair-use images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
So I could delete the exact same content on sight if it were anywhere else? Why can't I delete the gallery at Category:Pokémon images? Haukur 13:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This phrase certainly rings a bell, I seem to have heard it somewhere before... right Cyde? ;) - Mailer Diablo 13:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This is bordering on the Chewbacca defense, Haukur. Yes, the gallery in Category:Pokémon images should also be removed, for the same reason. I've added NOGALLERY for that reason, just now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It was added months ago, doesn't seem to work today. I don't intend this tangent as a Chewbacca defense I'm interested in the Pokémon gallery issue in its own right. If you feel it has nothing to do with the other issues discussed here then that's okay by me. Haukur 15:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
While this might be a borderline case where copyright is concerned, the 'gallery' format for displaying the logos looks like it runs afoul of our policy. Subjectively, I'd be inclined to argue that the gallery format doesn't look very good, either—it's just an array of logos chunked into the middle of an article. In any event, there was an ongoing (albeit rather slow) edit war going on over the inclusion of the images. There should have been a discussion and resolution on this issue before the images went back into the article, and Cardsplayer4life should have known better to continue revert warring. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, fair use laws suck. We all know that. However, we have actual legal advice for this, and we must follow it. --mboverload@ 12:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a link for the actual legal advice? Haukur 12:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes legal advice is necessarily not published so that one doesn't become liable to outsiders. --Cyde Weys 13:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Is this such a case? Haukur 13:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You can ask Brad yourself (in private) ... Cyde Weys 13:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've now sent him an e-mail. Haukur 13:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm not a lawyer. I do however work in a high-level govenment agency that is stacked to the rooftops with lawyers, and personally deal with complex legal matters almost every day. Generalised copyright law discussions under privilege? That seems highly unlikely. I'd say "almost bloody impossible to believe" but then I might be pushing the edge of asuming good faith. - brenneman {L} 13:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This branch of discussion is irrelevant because the usages can be legal and still be a violation of our policy. ed g2s • talk 14:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It's also needless conjecture. Jimbo Has Spoken, and he has spoken with the pretty clear force of having spoken with his friend Brad. Consider for a moment: you are a founding trustee, another trustee is a lawyer, you are considering the legal issues surrounding use of copyright images. Do you (a) make it up as you go along or (b) phone a friend? I know which I'd do. As the audience ocmes a pretty poor third in my view, which is what we're doing here. Just zis Guy you know? 14:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between doing someting that is probably be correct and doing so while acting like a total prat. Which are we discussing here? - brenneman {L} 13:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Kelly was right in terms of policy, and I support the block. She may have pushed the limits of WP:BLOCK by enacting the block herself ([58]), as she had been involved in the dispute herself, and it could have appeared that she was breaching
"Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute".
However, if we accept (and I do), that this was not a content dispute but a copyright issue, I'd say she acted legally here. Whether she could have handled the issue more sensitively is another matter.
Not that it makes much difference to the issue being discussed, but I thought the galleries looked poor too. --Guinnog 13:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel Kelly may have been a bit harsh with blocking, even if she is right about how galleries involving logos should be handled, particularly because it came just hours after the policy addition (or clarification). However, it definitely was not a good idea for User:Cardsplayer4life to revert over an edit that had "anyone who reverts this article to include the gallery WILL be blocked." in the edit summary. The better course of action would have been to discuss what he felt was right with Kelly Martin. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
She didn't exactly invite further discussion with the four consecutive edit summaries of: "This ends, now", "enough", "the debate has been weighed and is now over" and "discussions may not continue forever". As for the fair use question I still feel that there is very little difference between this (which Kelly says we should block people for) and this (which Kelly says is qualitatively different and needs to be discussed separately). I don't think any court would draw a line in the sand between those two styles, though, like Kelly, I prefer the first. Haukur 14:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The block itself

It's pretty clear: If there is any question about fair use status, don't re-insert the image. It's a no-nosense block when someone does this. - brenneman {L} 13:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I endorse this, but add that there needs to be a clear, unequivocal policy on this that we can refer users to. I believe this user to have been engaged in a good-faith effort to improve the project. Ambiguity in policy leads us to this sort of unpleasant incident. --Guinnog 13:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Huh? There's never no question, there is no limit to what copyright holders will claim they're entitled to control. Remember Mad (magazine)#Mad v. Supreme Court? Someone made an intelligent comment at m:avoid copyright paranoia:
"It isn't Wikipedia's mission to keep fair use alive. It is within Wikipedia's mission to keep Wikipedia alive.

Nevertheless, there's altogether too much anti-"fair use" rhetoric thrown around in the effort to keep Wiki secure.

"Copyright paranoia" is generally a bad thing -- a very bad thing, which causes us to voluntarily abandon our fair use rights before they are even legislated or adjudicated away from us. In the very narrow realm of the wiki, copyright paranoia is mostly a good thing that is, very unfortunately, conditioning many users toward a view of copyright that is every media corporation's wet-dream."

It's likely Brad can't share confidential legal advice with random users (as opposed to with the Foundation board). However, if there's been some kind of Wikipedia policy shift as the result of an open Wikimania discussion, it would be good if a transcript (or at least audio) were posted on-wiki. And if we really want to be paranoid, we better also get rid of all the source citations everywhere in the wiki, that consist of fair-use quotation of text. Images aren't special as far as copyright is concerned. Phr (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic galleries

This is meant as an honest question, not a trick question. Why is this gallery of 12 fair use images from 12 different copyright holders used within the context of discussing the 12 entities represented a blockworthy offence but Category:Pokémon_images, a gallery of 200 copyrighted images from the same copyright holder, used outside the context of discussing those entities not a problem at all? Haukur 14:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Briefly, the idea is that the nature of the use is very different. We're not presenting the category thumbnails as an article or finished product; the image list and thumbnails are automatically generated when images are in a category. Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation is probably closest to being on point here, but IANAL, and YMMV. Deliberately creating a thumbnail gallery and distributing it as part of an article is a much different usage. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
True, our intentions are different but still. If you go to an article about a particular Pokémon there'll be a prominent picture of that Pokémon. Click on that picture and you get a page about the image. That image page has a link to Category:Pokémon_images. To me that link says: "Hey! You want to look at some Pokémon images? Here are lots more!" So, unintentionally, we've created and widely linked to a page which is nothing but a gallery with unlicenced images. Saying "well, it's not a finished product so we're not really publishing it" sounds awfully weak to me. Search for "Pokémon images" on Google and this Wikipedia gallery is your second hit. [59] How can we reasonably say that we are not publishing a gallery of Pokémon images? Haukur 15:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Do all image categories create galleries instead of lists of links (like other categories)? If so, this needs to be changed in the mediawiki software. If this particular category is set up to display specifically as a gallery, that should be changed. There is nothing wrong with the category per se, but it should display as links, not pictures, if possible. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Normally, adding __NOGALLERY__ makes it show up as a list of links instead of a gallery of thumbs. I don't know why it's not working in that category. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Aha, see Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#NOGALLERY_tag. But not nearly all categories which need this tag currently have it. I just added it to Category:Star Wars characters. Haukur 15:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You can certainly add it wherever it is appropriate. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It sounds as if __NOGALLERY__ needs to be deprecated and __GALLERY__ needs to be an opt-in' measure for categories, then, if we're going to be serious about our standards. -- nae'blis 19:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The way it was done

Totally inappropiate. The discussion at Logo talk is frankly the most shocking thing I have ever seen an administrator say. - brenneman {L} 13:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with the strength of your statement, but it would have been better for Kelly to have involved others and to have issued more warnings, in my opinion. --Guinnog 13:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
How many warnings do you have to issue? The user clearly knew that he was violating the policy and that Kelly was going to block him, unless he didn't read the previous edit summaries, which would've been very foolish. On a page that has had copyright material added inappriopriately about a dozen times, stating "do this again and you will be blocked" is entirely appropriate. If someone, in the face of that final warning, does it again, it's a clear cut case for an instant block. ed g2s • talk 13:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I accept that. However, see my comments above about it being desirable to have a clear policy to refer editis to in cases like this. Involving more people would have more clearly preserved the appearance of fairness, which is important. --Guinnog 14:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Our policy is not the same as "what is Fair Use". The second case is not acceptable under either, it's just not covered by this specific policy, which relates to galleries. ed g2s • talk 14:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
And again, it's possible to do the right thing and still be totally wrong about it. "I have just made policy" and "It was meant to be intimidating" are just about as far wrong as you can go with adminstrative powers. Or is it no longer meant to be "no big deal" after all? - brenneman {L} 14:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree. There's ways to be persuasive and emphatic without making it such an overt domination of will - in fact, I would say that being overly-dominant, together with a hint of smarm ("many Wikipedians find [being blocked] problematic.") encourages the behavior of rebellion more than an approach that seeks comity. KWH 14:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Bottom line, it seems to me, is we need to balance keeping our project free and immune from criticism on copyright issues, and not putting off good contributors. Let's put it another way; although I agree that the blocked editor acted very unwisely, and as I said I support the block, when we have to block people for this kind of thing it is a good sign that the policy needs tweaked and/or clarified, so that it won't happen again. --Guinnog 14:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I have been a participant of the discussion on the logos almost from day one. In fact, I proposed a clarification to the logo guideline that would have specifically clarified that galleries were not OK and that certain other uses are OK. You can read about this at [[60]]. There was productive discussion occurring on this over the last several days. Then Kelly Martin, apparantly based partly on some discussions Kelly had at Wikimania, decided to swoop in and unilaterally declare what the policy should be. In my opinion, this is not the right way to do things.
The discussion was going along fine and Kelly does not have the right to come in and attempt to exercise some sort of veto and then begin blocking people. I have openned up a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2.
By allowing Kelly to issue blocks on this - we would be playing right into Kelly's hand of unilateralism, which would be a shame. Johntex\talk 14:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I am getting really sick and tired of having the word "unilateral" thrown around like some meaningless sort of epithet. Every time someone uses any admin action now you hear the peanut gallery decrying it as "unilateral". I believe the discussion on this page so far clearly demonstrates that Kelly is not acting unilaterally. --Cyde Weys 14:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Odd. She said she was. Regardless, when I used the word, I was referring to the appearance of her initial proclamation. That other admins have decided to support it is irrelevant to how the pronouncment appeared when issued. Powers 15:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not meaningless - Kelly actually acted unilaterally. Your agreement with her unilateral actions doesn't somehow make it a multilateral one. It's funny - those who act within the basic policies and guidelines when it comes to creating policy or acting in a divisive measure don't get accused of unilateralism. It's not hard to figure out when those tenets are abandoned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Policies are put in Black and White in Wikimanias? Gasp! Then I guess I have to make sure Wikimania is held in Singapore next year! =O - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It's appropriate to be agressive in defending against potential legal problems. However, cases like this should remind us all that it's possible to do the right thing in a wrong way. Whatever objectives can be accomplished by rudeness and bullying can be accomplished even more effectively without rudeness and bullying. Friday (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Completely agree with Friday. Though I may disagree with the outcome of the "policy" dicussion, the hostile way which Kelly Martin chose to deal with this does not assist reasonable editor and admins that just want to work to clarify the issue and, in the end, make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. The bottom line is that Kelly had other options, and she chose the one that blocked a dedicated editor, aggitated those that disagreed with her interpretation of policy, and opened this entire issue up to outside scrutiny. To say that this is the only reasonable way to achieve her policy goals is patently untrue. In the end, you reap what you sew. -- Masonpatriot 15:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I am a concerned about one aspect of this thread: I was at Wikimania, & I never knew any substantial & formal discussion about image galleries took place. (Maybe I was too busy meeting various Wikipedians from "the old days" like Andre Engels & Sannse.) Not that I would have attended any meeting on this matter because I had other interests in attending; yet one item I remember that was discussed repeatedly at this conference was the need for transparency. Call me a process fetishist, but if a decision like this is made, either it should be done as visibly as possible or its implementation needs to be as gradual as possible. -- llywrch 22:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate the idea of Wikipedia policy being determined in outside fora with no formal connection to Wikipedia, and I'm not thrilled about another questionable block with Kelly in the middle, either. Honestly, is it really that hard to drop a note here and let someone else do it, if you feel like it just has to be done? We've gone over this ground before, y'know? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 11:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I have a brilliant idea!

If there was a powerful consensus at Wikimania backed by Foundation legal council, how about we wait for some who, ideally, has strong and offical ties to the Foundation, considering the importance to the Foundation of the copyright policy, to explicitly edit the policy before we start throwing around the result of discussions at Wikimania as justifications for blocking, revert warring, and other such frivolity. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 17:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

But where would this leave the folks who enjoy being a fanatic? ;-) Friday (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Telling each other that operating system X zomgpwns the others. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 18:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Too much drama. KM should have just edited the pertinent policy page, sparing us the latest. El_C 19:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Boring. If we stopped giving Wikitruth material they'd have to go out on the street with "Will dance for food" signs. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cardsplayer4life again

The blocked user has now commented on his talk page:

"Wow, thanks everyone for all the nice comments and positive support. I have never been blocked before (never even received a warning before). I would comment on you guys' individual pages, but I can't because I am blocked. I really enjoy editing on wikipedia, and wish I would have got a warning or something before being blocked. (you can look back at my post record, I am not a troll or anything like that) Reading through the policy, it seems as if I was indeed correct in my edits, as I understand it. I will be leary of any edits I make to pages in the future, as it seems making edits to pages might result in being blocked again in the future. I guess I will be hanging up my Wikipedia hat for awhile, since it seems as if I might be causing trouble that I did not intend to cause. I apologize if I did anything to cause too much trouble, I sure did not mean to. As a word of advice to admins, in the future it might be good to give out a warning telling an individual what they were doing wrong, before blocking them, especially when the policy is ambiguous at best, and direct them to the place where the official policy states they can't do what they are doing. (I still haven't received anything telling me why what I did was wrong. All references I have seen have only backed up what I did as being correct.) In any event, it has been fun. Perhaps I will be back in the future at some point. (Cardsplayer4life 16:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC))" [61]

Irrespective of whether the original block was right or not, can we unblock him now? It seems to me that this is a good user who didn't mean any harm and won't do any harm if unblocked. Haukur 16:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I support an unblock. Blocks are for damage control, never punishment. It certainly appears that the point has been made. Friday (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I also support an unblock. I thought this is what talk page warnings and messages were for.--Firsfron of Ronchester 16:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
While I support Kelly's wish to uphold Fair Use policy, I would also support an unblock as blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive. I do not think there is any benefit to Wikipedia in leaving him blocked. AnnH ♫ 16:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Unblocking should do no harm, and might do some good. Tom Harrison Talk 17:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I will consider an unblock request if and only if Cardsplayer4life promises not only not to do this particular thing again (that is, insert a gallery of unlicensed images into a page on Wikipedia, something which is clearly outside of policy), but also to ensure that he has examined both the history and the talk pages of any article before editing it. His failure to do so is the cause of this block. Ample warning was in place that reverting the gallery would be responded to with a block; his unawareness of this is due to his own negligence. Ignorance of warnings placed on talk pages or in recent edit history is not an excuse for gross breaches of policy. Also, please don't expect a threat to leave Wikipedia to generate sympathy; please see meatball:GoodBye. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
If and only if? I'd have thought that several people supporting the unblock, all for similiar reasons, might be reason enough by itself to consider unblocking. Friday (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
If it was "clearly outside of policy" we wouldn't be having these problems. I still haven't gotten a clear explanation for why a bunch of images inside a <gallery /> tag is "clearly outside of policy" while the same bunch of images outside the tag isn't. Powers 19:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I support an immediate unblock. Kelly's insistence on a personal apology for supposedly violating a supposed policy which is not even on a policy page is out of line. Johntex\talk 17:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently six people have come out in favour of unblocking and none against except Kelly. I've gone ahead and unblocked the user. I hope that was the right thing to do. Haukur 17:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Make that seven. I'd have done it too. Bastique▼parler voir 17:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Of course, should the user re-insert the galleries, block him again (now there has been more than ample warning). Kusma (討論) 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, I also fully support an unblock. --Conti|✉ 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the unblock. I appear to have the ability to edit now. I harbor no ill will towards Kelly, as I hope she does not towards me. Having policy decided beforehand, so that people are clear on what they can and can't do, might be wise in the future, or at the very least having a discussion before blocking might be a way to handle things better in the future. I was perfectly willing to discuss matters (as evidenced by my posting on the discussion page), but using moderation powers to come up with individual policies makes it very hard for individual Wikipedians to know how to make edits. (in other words, moderators can come up with policy spur of the moment, with no offical written policy, and it is hard to read the minds of them beforehand). In any event, I will try to keep my edits to a minimum in the future to avoid causing any further trouble, I am generally a very peaceful individual and really dislike conflict. (Cardsplayer4life 17:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC))
It should be noted that Cardsplayer4life (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) reverted the gallery back onto the page as a logged-out user while he was blocked. (I don't understand why he wasn't autoblocked, but that's an issue for the devs.) It now appears seems that an unblock was quite inappropriate. However, in the interest of comity and given that Ed g2s has already reverted the reversion, I will refrain from imposing the one week block to which Cardsplayer4life is fully entitled. Any more shenanigans and I will not hesitate to impose the one month block that is the penalty for a third intentional violation of copyright policy, however. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The issue, no doubt, is that Ed blocked anons only, whilst allowing IPs to edit. The obvious solution, since the IP is reasonably static, is to block the IP with all editing disabled and see if anyone has the temerity to complain about the collateral damage. Granted, a check of that IPs edit history make it pretty obvious. Mackensen (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Kelly... Could you show me what section of copyright policy prohibits the use of galleries such as this specific case? It's quite clear the images are being used in a fashion which fits one basic principle of fair use, "describing the subject in question." --Avillia (Avillia me!) 00:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
They're not "describing the subject in question". They're decorating another (admittedly related) subject. And our "fair use" policy does not allow that. The use of a team's icon in an article about a league that the team is a member of adds no more information about the league than does the inclusion of the team's name in its list of members. Since the former requires the use of unlicensed media, and the latter does not, we preference the latter. I am not going to point to specific policy because this is simply obvious common sense, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
From the above I'd say you're owed seven apologies. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Give us a break. As if this makes the wildly inappropiate behavior all ok in some manner. When someone makes a block, it's courtesy to talk about it before unblocking, and that's what was shown here. Apologise for courtesy?? On the other hand, demanding that the editor aspire to some arbitrary higher standard before you'll consent to an unblock, especially in light of the adminstratorial conduct here, is simply farcical. Yes, it's bad that the ip/editor again chose to re-insert images while discussion was ongoing, but this damage is easy to contain. The damage from the corrosive attitude displayed in "creating policy" leading up to the block is not easily contained, and is thus a much larger problem. Is it really so mentally difficuly to seperate these two things: Block ok, manner of block not ok.
brenneman {L} 01:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Has that IP actually been check usered to be confirmed as him, or is just assumption as it rolled back the edit? The other edits by the IP appear unrelated. rootology (T) 01:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've applied the second level block; this guy clearly knew what he did was wrong, and yet he used block evasion to come do it anyway. Despicable. But what's even more despicable was that he was awarded a barnstar by an administrator for his actions. When did it become right to reward insincere apologies and block evasions while condemning our administrators who prevent fair use violations? --Cyde Weys 01:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As I just posted to Kelly on the RfC, she said she did checkuser him, but...before we set this guy out to hang, would it be possible to just get a neutral/3rd party CheckUser user to confirm? Not calling you a liar, but the last two times I piped up to lend support one or way or another on a behind the scenes Wikipedia thing it turned into not just a nightmare, but had people screaming all sorts of accusations. Just that way everything would be "above board" and no one could come back after Kelly to say anything negative later. I'm not saying this sudden turn of events is done as spin or anything, but having another 3rd party checkuser person check it out and post the results would nip everything in the bud for possible speculation like that. rootology (T) 01:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Mackensen is a checkuser. i take his statement as confirmation. Thatcher131 (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know now, I didn't when I posted here. It's all sorted I guess, just being discussed on the talk page of the RfC now. rootology (T) 04:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I came here before the RfC. Just so anyone checking in will know the answer. Thatcher131 (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I support blocking him for sock-puppetry and block evasion. This bad behaviour by Card does not change my opinion that the original block was invalid, but that is no excuse to evade a block that would soon have expired anyway. Johntex\talk 05:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree; might be able to get an indefinite for this. — Deckiller 05:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
No, this certainly does not warrant an indefinite block. Cardsplayer4life shows an agreeable and cooperative attitude in his comments above and on his talk page. If he, while blocked, logged out and reverted again, that's a very bad action, but it may well have been an action made in frustration about being blocked so brusquely. Given the attitude of cooperativity he displays here, I think we should be forgiving in this case. At least ask him first if (and why) he did it.
Also, blocks should be preventive, not punitive. Is there any reason to expect any more wrongdoing from Cardsplayer4life's part, or are some people here entertaining the thought of a punitive block? (Note that he says on his talk page he will not edit that particular page again.) — mark ✎ 08:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree wholeheartedly with Mark. I believe all recently blocked users should be cut some slack regarding what they do in the frustration of reacting to the block. For instance, don't scrutinize their posts for personal attacks, don't expect model behavior, don't take it so personally if they tell you how abusive you are. A block is a shock. All admins are more powerful than all regular users; but admins are so much more powerful than a blocked user that it should give them pause. It's not the right moment to express your irritation with how much trouble the user is being by slapping on an indefinite. Assume even more good faith than usual. This all goes double if the first block can be seen as dubious or unfair. I support unblocking now. Oh, and btw, I'm assuming good faith on Deckiller's comment that we "might be able to get an indefinite for this": I'm sure he didn't mean it as crassly as it sounded. Bishonen | talk 08:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC).
I would agree that a certain amount of "lashing out" should be politely ignored in most cases; here however he reinserted the edit for which he was blocked in the first place. The minimum should be to serve the full 24 hours originally applied. Whether to extend it depends on whether this was an accident or whether he has a history of making dubious edits while logged out (see Mackensen and Haukur's discussion below). Thatcher131 (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Given the evasion and reverting, and his apparent intransigence about the copyright violation, I support Cyde's block. Tom Harrison Talk 14:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the usual penalty for editing around a block (first offense) is a reset of the timer on that block, but I don't think a one week block here is horrible, either. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling war

User:Peterpansyndrome has started a spelling campaign, changing many words and dates to his own idiosyncratic preferred spelling/format. He is now repeatedly changing the table at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) without discussion or even giving references. I think he has now broken 3RR, but the problem seems more general than that. JPD (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I also note that it is not inconceivable that this user has something to do with previously banned User:Pnatt, who was also interested in Cranbourne and engaged in spelling wars as an Australian using spelling that tended towards US usage. JPD (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that it is pnatt (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). Same group of articles, same fight, and he even used his first name with this account. I will block him. I suspect that he will go on a tirade vandalizing my user page again. -- JamesTeterenko 18:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yup, he has started already as 203.49.189.70 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). Pretty soon he'll start calling me a wombat again!  :) -- JamesTeterenko 18:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
By the looks of it, he's now re-registered as NHLfan (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log): he's reverted Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) back to Peterpansyndrome's version, has requested that Cranbourne, Victoria be unprotected (compare this and this), and his user page consists of a list of "watchlist" articles, which give the game away somewhat. --RFBailey 21:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked this sock. At least he is making it easy for us. -- JamesTeterenko 22:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Should Pnatt (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) be community banned, or should we give him opportunity to reform?? I think we should try and help him to reform. --TheM62Manchester 22:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to help in this project. I've tried to help when he was still able to edit legally, but found it extremely difficult. He has some sort of OCD that urges him to do things that make it hard to AGF. However, other editors manage to survive with similar tendencies, so I wouldn't rule him out completely. I just wish this had been handled with less rancour and more understanding right at the start. --Jumbo 22:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
That's my point. Maybe we should unblock him, and put him on probation. --TheM62Manchester 22:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Please remember that there was a very clear consensus to ban him before. He should not be unblocked without consensus to undo that. I know Jumbo feels that he can be reformed, but many administrators believe that he can not. -- JamesTeterenko 22:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it would be easy. In fact my heart quails at the thought! But I can see his point of view. However, this is not a question that could be decided without input from those who have dealt with him before and I doubt very much that there would be any consensus to unban him now. --Jumbo 22:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this related to User:SpNeo's recent spelling change edits? Reverted example here Pete.Hurd 22:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. Pnatt's style is swift and confrontational. If only he would slow down a bit, get consensus for his changes, and not engage in edit wars, then we could work constructively with him. Some of his edits are of genuine merit, and he cites sources to support his views. --Jumbo 22:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it does not appear that this user is the same as Pnatt. The editing pattern is very different. -- JamesTeterenko 22:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it needs saying, but it's worth making clear that I, for one, would completely oppose an unblock. We tried "mentoring" him, and it didn't work. I wouldn't consider an unblock sooner than a year after I implemented the community ban, leave alone a month. I know this will sound harsh to Jumbo and others that have done their best to reform Pnatt, but I'm not sure why this particular tendentious edit warrior has received so much sympathy compared to the others that pass through this page. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he is back as User:Peterenko. JPD (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time for action on Tchadienne?

Tchadienne (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Search for his name above in this page and he pops up more than a few times now. I do not propose a community ban on the user, though others might: this individual has contributed a lot of good stuff to the encyclopedia and I think only ArbCom should be allowed to make that kind of decision in a case like this. I will note that Tchadienne has announced his intention to switch accounts, but to occasionally use the Tchadienne account for edits in those areas he has previously edited in. Instead, if you look at his contribs over the last day or so (since he was unblocked), he has used the the account for fighting, name-calling, personal attacks, and a disruptive spate of incivility. This is not a legitimate use of multiple accounts. I therefore propose that Tchadienne be blocked indefinitely, with the understanding that he is for now free to go and peacefully edit under the new account he has probably switched to by now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Heartily agree, as one who previously argued for giving him a chance. See my user talk page, for example. There is no value in having this account remain open. --Guinnog 18:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
As a small aside... the word Tchadienne is French for "woman from Chad". So "he" is much more likely a "she". (→Netscott) 18:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I did wonder about that. Either a she or a less-than-perfect French-speaker! It makes no odds; I am no longer going to advocate on his/her behalf and I would now happily see them banned. The good they contribute is greatly outweighed by the bad. I have a bad feeling about my own role in the matter; not one of my more successful mediation attempts. Oh well. --Guinnog 19:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

He/she has compiled an impressive block log between the three accounts they've edited under. See here for details. Aren't I Obscure? 19:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Impressive indeed. You missed out
  • 19:45, 6 August 2006 Ral315 (Talk | contribs) blocked "NOBS (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Sockpuppet used to evade a block.)
not to mention all the user's IP identities... --Guinnog 19:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It does indeed look like a repeating pattern of disruption, trouble, and moving on to a clean sheet to start all over again - interspered with numerous valuable contributions. The question is whether we should block the old accounts, including Tchadienne, and await developments (history indicates that there will soon be an association made with the old accounts) or whether to go to ArbCom now. Since Tchadienne has now asserted (s)he is switching accounts again I think ArbCom is unlikely to accept, so I think we bank the evidence, block the old and disruptive accounts as an inappropriate use of alternate accounts, assume good faith in respect of the change, and stand ready with the Wikitrout if it starts again. Just zis Guy you know? 19:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes.. chuckle chuckle chuckle. You morons probably arent too familiar with La Tchadienne now are you? No, I didnt think so. Bunchograpes, this section has... what purpose exactly? I already stated I was permanently leaving this account. If you werent such a fool, and had actually gone through my contributions, you would have seen that I tried to leave quietly. but no, you had to be a dumbass and try and exacerbate the situation. W/e. The last laugh is mutual. Tchadienne 19:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe an indefinite "community's patience" ban of all of this individual's accounts isn't out of the question? (→Netscott) 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked the user for one week for disruptive incivility. Comments welcome. Tom Harrison Talk 19:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well done. This account was predominantly used for bickering anyway, so it will be no great loss to the community. --Guinnog 19:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added "new user" to Obscure's list, as this was an obvious sockpuppet.--Firsfron of Ronchester 20:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think 1 week is good (no offense). I would go for a permanent ban; if he's leaving this account anyway, he doens't need it, and, as Guinnog said, it's predominantly used for bickering anyway. —Mets501 (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, reading his comments, 1 week doesn't seem like enough, especially when you consider that he's been acting like this pereodically for months... I don't think a week will really change much. And if he's done with this account, why does he need to use it anyway? --W.marsh 23:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You know me; when it comes to blocking for personnal attacks I'm just a big softie. I support an indefinite block if anyone wants to extend it. Tom Harrison Talk 01:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I would advise against jumping to an indefinite block in this case, at least for now. When it comes to editors that have a history of positive contributions to Wikipedia, indefinite blocks should be the very last measure taken (preferably decided by group consensus). As far as I'm concerned, indefinite blocks should only be used when a user has shown beyond doubt that he or she will never make a positive contribution to Wikipedia, ever. If that hasn't been proven, but a long-term block is necessary, go with three months or so. That's plenty of time to allow someone to cool off and put things in perspective (and should be enough to discourage most unrepentant vandals). You never know when an unruly editor may just have lost his cool after a frustrating day (or week). Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 01:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
TB, did you read my suggestion up at the very top of this section? Noting that he has repeatedly announced his intention to abandon the Tchadienne account and move on to a new one (something he may well have already done), I suggested we make sure that happens, by indef-blocking that account, but explicitly permit him to quietly and hopefully productively move on. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry that I didn't address your initial comment very well. To clarify, I have the feeling that we're pushing this user into the position of having to creating a new account to escape other users' vengeance, rather than using blocks as a temporary measure to discourage policy violations. I do appreciate that you've proposed an alternative which allows him (or her) to fly back in under the radar, and agree that Tchadienne's behavior is inappropriate, but I sense that vindication may be outweighing mercy here. And I don't mean that as an accusation, just an observation.
In any case, if Tchadienne has already moved on and no longer uses his/her former account, a block wouldn't be necessary. If it becomes apparent that a disruptive sock has been created, then it shouldn't be too difficult to address the issue at that future point — going for an indefinite block now may be a sort of chilling effect. ...but, then again, a few months back I tried encouraging Thewolfstar to mend her ways up until her first indefblock. I may be guilty of extending mercy to a fault here.Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 02:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sudden huge rush of new accounts

This may not be anything bad, but it looks suspicious to me... Just looking at recent changes, and there was an enormous list of new accounts all being made at the exact same time... Looking at new account log, there is a whole page full within the last few minutes, though none of the few I checked seem to have done anything yet. At the same time as I saw that go by, almost nothing else was showing up on recent changes (not for lack of room, just like nothing was happening), and I was getting site errors saying it was having trouble. Maybe a coincidence, but thought I should mention it. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that people who know more than I do are looking into it, so that if several turn out to be socks of a banned user, they can all be blocked at once. Tom Harrison Talk 20:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I've seen this happen before, when there are database problems, so you can't update articles. User accounts are, I guess, a separate database, so registrations continue. So when you look at the recent history, you see a whole bunch of new registrations, but no page changes. It isn't a rush of new accounts, it's a lack of anything else. Fan-1967 21:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that makes sense. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe a nafarious user waited until there was a database problem, so he could sneak in under the radar. Or maybe you should all just ignore my paranoid suspicions. Tom Harrison Talk 01:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated reverts at Kardzhali

User:Valkov is repeatedly removing (like this [62]) the Turkish spelling of this Bulgarian city's name for some nationalist reason. I and User:CeeGee have tried to stop him and explain our grounds as to why the name should stay (population is 62% Turkish), but Valkov has refused to provide any sufficient rationale and has even engaged in personal attacks against CeeGee (this edit summary).

His reverts do not violate WP:3RR, because they are usually one or several days apart (but are regular). Todor→Bozhinov 21:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the reason explained very clearly by Todor as above, I ask an administratot to warn User:Valkov seriously or to block him if a warning won't help. Thanks a lot. CeeGee 05:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical usernames, new vandal??

What is it with the new usernames:


Is this a new WoW-type vandal?? Looks like we'd better watch out!

Anyhow, I'll create a new template for this vandal soon! --TheM62Manchester 21:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't waste your time on this one, they're lame. Naconkantari 21:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Did I miss something? As far as I can see, none of these people have edited and they're indefinitely blocked it appears for username violation. And TheM62Manchester has created an entire category and template for "The Chemical Vandal". How can someone be a vandal without actually doing something? Do they deserve a category and template without doing something? Metros232 22:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, bad idea of mine, apologies. What a bad idea --TheM62Manchester 22:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
As a RC patroller, this is a silly idea to create these specialized templates to glorify certian vandals. PoolGuy loved his template so much, he started tagging his own sockpuppets with it. This 'vandal' hasn't even edited, and that 3rd account doesn't appear to even exist right now. Kevin_b_er 23:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please deny recognition and avoid making any fuss over vandalism. - brenneman {L} 23:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see WP:BEANS. --Guinnog 00:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Given this thread, most particularly the creator's agreement that the template in particular shouldn't be used, I've deleted it, and its redirect. The category was already deleted by Naconkantari. -Splash - tk 00:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Quick, let's reward them with an LTA subpage! --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC) bitter? moi?

[edit] I'm new

hey whats up everybody i'm new here, want some tips. I want to become an admin quickly. merci.FrenchDude 00:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No-one becomes an admin quickly - those who do lots of work backstage, do it well, and become well-liked by the community, may pass a request for adminship nomination after about six months. As for tips - if you're writing articles, write neutrally, cite your sources so others can check that what you've written is verifiable, and read Wikipedia:Your first article if you're starting a new article. If you're talking to others, be civil and generally act like you'd like to be treated. If you're looking for stuff to do, try the Community Portal. And if you have further questions... please don't ask here, as this board is for when something goes wrong and an admin is needed to deal with it :-). Try the help desk for help with Wikipedia, the village pump for other queries, or you can just ask anyone on their talk pages and they should be willing to help. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain we're being put on. --InShaneee 01:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean Shannee?FrenchDude 01:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I so called it. :P --InShaneee 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings for anon-proxy, postblock.

I figure this might be a good place to ask; [63] is me trying to avoid a revert-war over the issue. When Tor proxies are blocked, should we just drop the warnings to history and leave the Tor notice? Also, considering the new blocking system, should we be using full or semi (anon-only) blocks? Scuse me if these have already been covered. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 00:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I would assume that open proxies should always be full blocks, since the idea is to keep people from using them to abuse editing privileges--64.12.116.65 00:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Open proxies should be indef hardbanned until they are no longer open proxies. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:AOL yada

This is unusual. Does this raise any eyebrows? Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 03:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked and deleted the template. Naconkantari 03:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it would be a disaster to have a template that allowed us to know when a known dos vandal was creating collateral damage, no wonder you deleted it--205.188.116.65 03:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Templates like these only encourage vandalism. Naconkantari 03:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Then work the autoblock feature into the regular sockpuppet tag--205.188.116.65 03:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Better? --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by Skull22

Skull22 (talk • contribs) is moving from page to page and vandalizing. I'm trying to keep up with reverts until he gets blocked.—Chidom talk  03:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • In the future, Try taking this to AIV, you'll get a much faster response, although user is already indef blocked so it really doesn't matter either way--205.188.116.65 04:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, they were blocked before you reported it here, so it really doesn't matter all that much--205.188.116.65 04:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism, Holocaust Denial, etc.

Looks like we have much vandalism—some of it on racially charged subjects—some Holocaust denial, etc. coming from 198.54.202.82 (talk • contribs). Could be a shared address and all, but there seems to be a lot of this sort of thing from this IP, and nothing I could see in 10 minutes or so of looking that was clearly not from the same user, although there are some harmless edits on white South African cultural topics, etc. Not sure if there is something here really worth any action, someone may want to look more closely.

Also: do we have any policy about Holocaust Denial stuff on the talk pages of Holocaust-related articles? Do these talk pages unavoidably become, in effect, free hosting for this ugliness? - Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I would quietly archive it (after unlinking any weblinks)) to ~article~/Trolling. Oh alright, something else, but you know what I mean. Just zis Guy you know? 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A DRV request

Recent Delete: There was an AfD dialog for Jayram Menon which resulted in a delete due to non-verifiability. The original AfD was initiated by an administrator was based the AfD on an erroneous premise on the number of hits that was got through a Google search. However the dispute remained on the verifiability. I am enclosing a scan of a press/news item that was featured in a leading newspaper in India that does acknowledge the notability and verifiability of the individual. (Verifyability for Jayram Menon]. Its upto the administrators to review the deletion and be fair. AshleyMiller 07:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The place for that is WP:DRV. Just zis Guy you know? 12:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sockpuppet - User:Francespeabody?

User:216Cali may be a sockpuppet of User:Francespeabody, or the other way around. Contributions for 216Cali, and for Francespeabody. There is an RfC I see open in regards to the Franscispeabody account. They both linger in the exact same few articles, and the 216Cali account often seems to appear to defend Frances as their primary contribution. What made me suspect was this edit by Frances and what followed. Another editor reverts her, per the concensus we're reaching on the talk page. 216Cali then arrives to back Frances, with this edit, which features the summary of "Wow, FP, you were right, same ol' same censorship. I have updated the article and renamed the section in question to more accurately define why it is included". 216Cali also extensively defends Francespeabody as seen here. Another thing that makes me suspect a puppet connection is the fact that the 216Cali user did nothing at all on WP from 28 July 2006 until today, when people pointed out that Francespeabody would violate 3rr if she reverted once more--and the next edit is 216Cali doing the same edit again.


The confusing bit is that the 216Cali account technically edited Condoleezza Rice first, so I'm not sure which would technically be considered the master. rootology (T) 07:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can You Help

I was blocked all today for truing to be Neutral on Potter's House. I have written the reason for it a dozen times to deaf ears - long story see links (i.e. sore typing fingers), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-07_The_Potter%27s_House

I have tried everything - appealing to you guys was recommended on a page I saw.

The people involved have bullied me before - but when I appealled to admins it got sorted.

Can you help? Potters house 07:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you were blocked for breaking the three-revert rule. But you are now unblocked. Just zis Guy you know? 08:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Potters house, it looks to me like the suggestions various people left on your talk page were good ones; as for the article dispute, please try to work things out through the mediation once a mediator arrives. They tend to be pretty helpful. If mediation doesn't work out, there's some further dispute resolution procedures available, but don't worry about that unless it becomes necessary.

Sometimes the way we do things takes some getting used to, but the people trying to help you on your talk page generally know what they're doing, so please try to accept their advice about citing sources and that type of thing (the policy docs they mentioned are also important to understand). Also, yes, the 3RR results in an automatic block, so be very careful about reverting--discuss the issue on the article's talk page instead. Good luck! Phr (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for help

I hope this is the right place for this... Please could someone help me, I'm being attacked by User:OrangeGum. I've twice tried to remove his or her speculative, original research edit here. I can't talk to this user on his/her userpage as it has been locked. He/she keeps calling me a Nazi (see the edit summary here, this comment on my user page, and this, which I really found very upsetting). If anyone can unlock their talk page and try to help resolve this, I'd be very grateful! Thanks, Jenny Wong 08:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling a user a nazi completely unacceptable, but doing it at multiple times in different places is nothing short of malicious. I'm sorry this happend to you Jenny. An admin should be by soon. --mboverload@ 08:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Jenny, that user is already blocked. Phr (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Phr. Is that definitely correct? The previous block has expired (the attacks took place this morning) and no new message has been added to their page to say that a new block is in place or that they shouldn't be calling me a Nazi... Jenny Wong 10:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
No, the block's expired: [64]. But, I agree that OrangeGum's behaviour was egregious, and I've taken the liberty of an additional block without warning. Sorry you had to go through that Jenny. -- Samir धर्म 10:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help! Jenny Wong 10:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
(heh, edit conflict): Further: it looks like OrangeGum has been making some basically ok edits, but has WP:OWN issues and is acting out childishly. S/he's (originally) blocked for talk page warning removal (now for attacks), and the talk page is protected. Personal attacks are not mentioned in the block message talk page. Samir, it would be good if you could add a mention of that, plus something about WP:CIV and about citing sources, and ask the user to act more maturely in general.

Jenny--don't let this kind of thing get to you too much--you're probably dealing with a dweeb juvenile who is way overaggressive online, something that happens quite often, so don't take it personally or lose sleep over it. It's just someone else's behavior problems and/or sugar overdosage that you were unlucky enough to get mixed up with temporarily. Generally, I'd suggest either backing away from the person or trying to communicate in a way that tones down confrontation, even if the other person is needlessly combative. See: WP:COOL. Of course this is not always easy to do, and admin intervention does help when it gets bad like this ;-).

As for the OR-ish edit about what model of guitar was shown in Back to the Future Part II, it's not very damaging even if it's wrong, so for that kind of thing I generally prefer to add a {{fact}} tag and bring up the issue on the talk page rather than reverting immediately. I'd only revert if 1) some time goes by without the citation request being responded to; and 2) I thought the claim was actually wrong or controversial. This is just a matter of trying to get along with other editors on a collaborative project like this. Phr (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ermin Šiljak

Ermin created an account and put his bio up for deletion. It's been two days, and it's all keep votes, or comments favoring a close. Can an admin close this thing? I was almost tempted to close it myself.... :P The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Ermin's account, User:Lightbulb-Bulblight, sabotaged the AfD. I was tempted to say something, but his last edit was two days ago, so it would be somewhat worthless. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
the Lightbulb account was just indefblocked by me, since it looks like a bad faith nom and changing the votes is a no no...and denying it is trolling. I'd close it but I can never remember the afd closer templates, and I rewrote my js closer helpers to do cfd instead of afd. :/ Syrthiss 14:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It's {{at}} and {{ab}}, which are shortcuts for {{afd top}} and {{afd bottom}}. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Huzzah! Syrthiss 15:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC) had to look up whatever it is that you put on the talk page tho ;)
Damn! Nobody told me! :( I was sweating away typing all the extra letters these past two months! Argh!! - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
At least you knew what those extra letters were. Chin up! :) Syrthiss 15:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AOL user butt obsession

[65] [66] Note this appears to be in response to this which was left at an earlier AOL IP address used by this person. Phr (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...those AOL vandals. I'm thinking that he's related to the F.U.C.K...S.H.I.T...C.U.N.T... vandal, too. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Range block! Range block!  :o) Just zis Guy you know? 18:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't you dare! Geogre 18:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC) (no longer an AOLamer, but still sympathetic)
(Edit conflict) I've pinpointed that 99.999% of anonymous IP vandalism comes from the range 1.0.0.0-255.255.255.255! Quick, indef range block! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Blocked. --Carnildo 22:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Another one: [67]. These are from AOL, so blocking (for now) can cause cause collateral damage. Blocking a single address won't really help (notice the person's address is changing all the time) but range blocking will clobber a lot of users. Are we getting XFF from AOL yet? I thought I heard they were going to start sending it. Phr (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
And: [68] Phr (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the destructive and the tyranny of AOL users. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, contributes to the gathering of human knowledge, for he is truly Wikipedia's keeper and the finder of lost sources. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my Wikipedia. And you will know my name is Jimbo when I lay my vengeance upon thee. --mboverload@ 22:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV edits at Ayn Rand

User:AOluwatoyin and User:LaszloWalrus constantly make the same POV edit, removing Anton LeVay from the "influenced" section of the infobox despite the fact that we have a cited source proving this. LaszloWalrus is a known vandal and POV editor, and has never been disciplined for the chaos he causes at this article (although he has been blocked several times in the past for unrelated infractions). AOluwatoyin constantly makes personal attacks against me and other editors in reaction to reverts of edits (which he tries to justify with his POV rather than any sources), both on Talk:Ayn Rand and on my talk page. -- LGagnon 17:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missingno

Missingno was the subject of a complaint here recently, he (I guess it's a he) was engaging in odd behaviour, running multiple accounts, making no edits to the encyclopaedia and generally being a pain. I blocked all but the one account, and in an uncharacteristic assumption of good faith I advised him to edit articles about cats since he seems to like them. The result was a few additions of pictures of kittens to Cat, and the creation of a user sub-page of pictures of women he loves (please, no jokes about pussy). This was then moved to an entirely inappropriate pseudo-user page (User:Missingno-Women I Love). I've blocked Missingno for a month, deleted the gallery of women, and also deleted his user page, which was the focus of his activity here. Four article edits, the aforementioned kitten additions. If anyone feels I am a wicked and evil person, please slap my wrists. --ajn (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IP 81.1.73.247 Vandalism to the Jim Hawkins article

I reverted an edit on the Jim Hawkins article by the above IP making a "Siegthaler-esque" reference to the Kennedy assisnation. This BLP subject has been watching his article through various IPs. He is currently trying to get it removed, even threatening legal action. This IP and Article should be on a few admin's radars. Thanks Agne 19:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Topics & Archives

What happened to archives 126 and 127? There appears to be at least two missing topics.—Who123 19:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Which topics? I opened Archive127 but Essjaybot won't add anything until midnight tonight. Last night it added to 126 and indicated 126 was full (over 300K) so I created 127 and added the navbox but nothing will get archived there until tonight? Thatcher131 (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry. My mistake.—Who123 20:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to take care of a copyvio

I removed text in the article Maafa which had been directly copied from this site. The tag made a big bruhaha about having an administrator remove the notice, but I figured since it was a clear-cut case of a bulk amount of text, the warning could be removed immediately. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

ParalelUni (talk • contribs) is displaying signs of WP:OWN. This is in front of WP:RFAR due to his refusal to accept mediation; essentially he reverts any change which points out that this is an unaccredited school. Since I'm now involved I guess I won't be blocking him for tendentious editing but my word this is tedious - a minority of one with absolute refusal to accept anybody else's opinion. Just zis Guy you know? 21:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone should take a look at JzG's edits/behavior with regard to this article, it's totally inappropraite, especially for an admin. Someone really needs to pull on this guys leash. I'm not the first user to complain about this guys totally inappropriate behavior. Senior admin should really look into how he acts here on Wikipedia. Spike 21:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You're not quite qualified to judge JzG's adminship considering your experience on Wikipedia does not extend past editing St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. I fully support JzG's position here because he has been editing this article as a responsible editor (like any one of us can be) while citing from Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. I see no conflict-of-interest here since he has not used his admin powers to block or threaten you. If you want to continue to contribute as part of the Wikipedia community then it is your obligation to acknowledge the request for mediation. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Long experience indicates that minorities of one, especially single purpose accounts, are without documented exception the problem not the solution. Just zis Guy you know? 22:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am more than qualified as a member of this community and from a common sense prospective to question the motivations and actions of any admin. here. Are you to say that members here are not able to question the potentially self-serving and corrupt action of an admin. on wikipedia? That really says a lot about this site. You also should do your homework a little better, my editing extends beyond that single article. It's obvious this is just the case of admins closing ranks. One hand washes the other. Spike 22:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that your last edit, using an IP instead of your account, is better than violating WP:3RR with your main account? You don't think that might have been the teensiest bit foolish, given that several admins are now looking your way? Just zis Guy you know? 22:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Now you resort to libel? That's really just nothing short of truly pathetic. If you can prove that I am violating WP:SOCK, please do so, otherwise someone really needs to put a choke collar on you because you are getting close to crossing a legal line at this point. Spike 22:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
As to your claim that you have edits to other articles, you have less than 20 edits to other articles, most of which are to articles related to St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. For example, you edited Ibrahim DIOP Mar, the founder of ths school. Similarly, you added the school to a disambiguation page [69], and edits adding the school editing over how the school is described in Medical school (United Kingdom) [70]. The only other topics you have edited are a handful of minor edits to Core worlds, Brazil Nut, Hollow (Charmed), SelectaVision. It seems like the description of your editing habits was correct. JoshuaZ 22:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Since I have edited other articles that really doesn't fit in with the point of single purpose accounts, does it? Regardless, if you look at all the individuals involved in the regular editing of the SCIMD article they are all SPA's. Spike 22:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
You might want to read what you cite a single purpose account is one "used for edits in one article only, or a small range of often-related article." JoshuaZ 22:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Given that this use rhas now violated WP:SOCK and WP:3RR ([71], [72], [73], [74], [75]), does anyone feel like a little LARTing? Just zis Guy you know? 22:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "LARTing" but I've blocked him for 24 hours and left a note on his talk page. JoshuaZ 22:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Joshua. For info, LART = Luser Attitutde Readjustment Tool :-) The thing is, if you look in Category:Schools of Medicine in England what you see is the established GMC-accredited schools. Imperial College, King's, Guys and St. Thomas's - and then he wants to add this oddball place named after its founder, registered in Senegal and not accredited by the DfES or GMC? This institution, whatever the hell it is, just does not belong in that category. Since my parents live not far from Luton I am minded to go there and scope it out some time. The behaviour of this user has nudged me towards believeing it's a degree mill, but mustn't be hasty. Just zis Guy you know? 23:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting: [76] - "Spike" uses the word "we" to describe the subject. WP:AUTO, anyone? Just zis Guy you know? 23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saudi Arabia vandal

Note: The original report was filed on WP:AIV but has been moved here in case this vandal returns during the next 24 hours.

In the last hour we've had a spate of vandalism from Saudi Arabia's rotating national-level proxy servers including:

Current status: Range block expired. Please monitor the above addresses for at least another hour before removing this alert. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion is currently taking place on what to do next at #wikipedia on Freenode. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Is 212.138.64.0/18 a valid range block?--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
According to whois, it's a /20. --Chris (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

212.138.64.174 just vandalized again. 3h block. --Chris (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Since these are nation-level proxy servers, 3 hours seems a bit excessive. 15-30 mins and see what happens? --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I already range blocked for one hour. Please remove this listing if the vandalism stops.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Chris: since there's a rangeblock in place now, the 3 hour block on 212.138.64.174 should probably be removed now. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duh duh duuuhhhhhh....! Thewolfstar.

User:KingWen popped up around today and picked up Thewolfstar/Lingeron's torch. Edits and style are nearly identical. The user talk page edits are almost exactly the same style: see here. What articles does this user immediately begin editing? Why, Democratic Party (United States), attempting to remove the historical basis of the party in Jeffersonian government; Anarchism in the United States, giving Jefferson that good 'ol anarchist pedigree (with almost exactly the same edit summary); Anarchism, making the same edits as Thewolfstar/Lingeron (sorry, WP:AGF; she magically found them from weeks ago and thought that they were so great that they should be reinserted); and so on. This one seems like a no-brainer, but I would appreciate it if someone else took a look at it. --AaronS 03:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and wha....? --AaronS 03:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, she might actually be juggling two accounts. See User:OceanDepths and edits like these where they piggyback. --AaronS 03:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've strongly suspected KingWen of being Thewolfstar since she first showed up on User_talk:WillMak050389. (OceanDepths I have no opinion on right now). It's either her or another environmentalist religious Jeffersonian anarchist with a strong penchant for user talk chit-chat and fiddling with various user talk subpages. Sigh. Now, do we block now or wait to argue with the trolls first? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Block now, if its so obvious that they're thewolfstar socks. WP:IAR. ~ c. tales *talk* 04:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Block now. And Abunchofgrapes, if you are referring to me, I'm sorry. — Deckiller 04:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't, I promise. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I ran into them on Talk:Capitalism. I thought I smelled something fishy. The Ungovernable Force 04:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked KingWen. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support: Maggie's farm grows many socks. Another head of the hydra gone. More to come, no doubt. Geogre 22:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

At this point, we probably need another checkuser to put to bed her claims that we're doing this without evidence. You know, because she's not accepting the fact that she just jumped onto the scene a few days back and started pushing the exact same edits that Lingeron and Wolfstar did as evidence. And she considers it a coincidence that she's spouting the same rhetoric about the featured article review on anarcho-capitalism being an attempt to "destroy the article." So maybe we should checkuser her. Or maybe just lock her talkpage because it's not like Lingeron accepted a checkuser last time.--Rosicrucian 14:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not needed. It's obvious enough, especially considering their comments towards me on their talk page. There is no doubt this is thewolfstar. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 21:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I already requested a checkuser two days ago, so we'll see what happens. The talk page discussion is precious; I hadn't noticed it, before. I guess we're pretty evil. --AaronS 13:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Comanche cph

Comanche cph (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

In the edit summary to this edit the user referred to a fellow editor as "fjeldape" which means mountain ape. This in it self is not good, but when you factor in that this is a nationalist derogatory term used in Denmark against Norwegians it becomes highly unaceptable. The reported editor is Danish and the editor which was labelled a mountain ape is Norwegian. The editor has been warned against personal attacks numerous times, but has removed many warnings from his talk page. He is presently blocked for 3RR violation, but a reaction for this violation would be in order as well.

The user has been involved in a handful of articles now and the mode of operations seem not to improve. Frequent reverting sometimes just within the 3RR, sometimes braking it. A common trait is also personal attacks against editors disagreing with him.

A third point is some of his random insulting edits such as [77] [78] against muslims and his entries of 17:42, 30 June 200621:32, 30 June 2006 and 13:49, 9 August 2006 to the Turkey article.

He has been involved on this page on the following occasions before: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive120, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive121, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive122 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive125.

Sometimes administrators have given him warnings which he has broken without penalty and sometimes administrators have stated that penalties would increase if the mentioned behaviour continued, but that has not been followed through. He is frustrating and using up time for many editors and not showing any signs of improvement, but adminstrator involvement has been short. I fear that he will be alowed to go on just because of the narrow nature of the articles he is involved in.Inge 02:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see that Comanche is currently under a 24h block. Just to get the record straight from the beginning: I had a long discussion with Comanche yesterday (see Talk:Denmark-Norway), which became a rather frustrating experience. I'm worried about the attitude he has shown on Talk:Viking Age, Talk:Scandinavia and other pages. Some time ago I wrote a long message to him trying to persuade him to become more friendly [79] unfortunately without success. (To be sure he understood it, I wrote it in Danish, and any Dane, Norwegian or Swede can confirm its contents since our languages are mutually intelligible). His later edits prove that he *did* read the message since I asked him to simply ask people nicely "what is your source for saying this or that". Now he uses this phrase [80] but it seems like he simply ignores information that disagrees with his own views.
Since I'm a Dane, I can confirm that "fjeldabe" is an offensive and derogatory term used against Norwegians, and its use here is highly inappropriate (Inge's translation is correct: it literally means Mountain Monkey / Mountain Ape). He has accused User:Inge of being a nationalist before, and this really bothers me, since Inge is a very fine contributor. For my part, I am frustrated. Valentinian (talk) 08:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This case is slowly exhausting the patience of the community, and as time passes, it becomes more and more alike to others of edit warring and nationalistic POV-pushing (User:Molobo comes to mind). In just 2 months, he has already served 6 blocks without showing any signs of improvement in his attitude, and he continues to defy at least 4 different, non-negotiable rules. I think the next breach of NPA or 3RR should be accompanied by a longer block as means of giving him time to examine said policies in detail, as well as the potential consequences if he continues to ignore them. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 11:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Nod. I'd support a fairly long block (measured in weeks not days) as the last step before indefinite. ++Lar: t/c 11:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for getting involved. I really appreciate that. It sometimes gets lonely when dealing with Comanche cph. I have the view that he should be given a longer brake from wikipedia now. Action speaks louder than words when it comes to this editor and he has been given many such chanses before. He has been given so many warning of the type "if you do this one more time...." which have not been followed up that I don't think he respects them. I believe he has been given too much slack already. I was very surprised when his "joke" about muslims linked to above didn't earn him a long block or even a warning. The mountain ape thing on its own deserves a long block. Inge 12:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
user talk:Comanche cph is now on my watchlist, and I'd also support a long block if the racism and abuse continues. --ajn (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Sharon and Lar here, this is just becoming tedious. Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 12:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
If even Phaedriel can't see the good in this user then a block must be a foregone conclusion. Just zis Guy you know? 20:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I support a long block at this point or even an indefinite one. He's had many second chances now and his behaviour has not improved. I'm also hard-pressed to find a single unquestionably useful edit from him. Haukur 12:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remind the admins he does have an IP which will need to be blocked as well. There has been (2) accusations he is using sock puppets. The one is linked on the IP page Inge thinks is his (User_talk:194.255.124.250), the other has been resolved (Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Comanche_cph). --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 17:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Well now he's back. His second edit was to remove the warning I put on his talk page for his personal attack mentioned above. Inge 19:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
He is also continuing his revert tactics...Inge 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Well now he has removed the warning I gave him not to remove warnings. This is not a good start...Inge 19:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks because you have used so much time on me. I have had probelms with my way to talk with "some" other users. (Does who make unsourced and wrong edit's). I have allways made a joke on the page Turkey. (nothing harmfull). Sorry to that.

I will keep moving all user:Inge edit on my talk page. That user seems to have pested me since i'v made my early edit in moving some wrong edits from that user. I don't move warnings from my talk page witch comes from a moderator/administrator. But since Inge have made many attacks and fake warnings on my talk page in hope to get me banned. I will not tolerate that user on my talk page. Thanks and have a nice day. --Comanche cph 20:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. I have also seen a fake accouses that me and user:supermos should be same person. That is not true. --Comanche cph 20:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Comanche cph, as I tried to tell you on your talk page, warnings are not issued in order to attack you or try to get you banned. They are issued in order to let you know what is and is not axceptable behaviour and to let you know when you have crossed a line. That way you will become a better editor. Inge 20:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe i should put some warnings on user:inge talk page for all the unsourced edits on wiki and fake adminstrator recalls on me. Hmm, no! I will not sink that low. --Comanche cph 20:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 48 hours for continuing disruptive edits.--File Éireann 21:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

My take is that non admins making informal warnings can well have their warnings deleted, but if they have a concern they should ask (here) for assistance, as Inge has done. Admins making more formal warnings should not have warnings removed without some evidence that the warning was read and understood... removing a warning unread or with an insulting edit summary is, in my view, cause for a block as the user is showing that they do not intend to heed warnings or change behaviour. Inge is not an admin. I am. I have reviewed this users contributions and while there have been some issues in the past I wasn't able to spot recent issues that clearly called for a warning, other than the Turkey (bird) one given above ([81]) which I did issue a mild warning about... Do you have recent diffs that might show this? ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC) PS snicker at the new standard of irredemability: "If even Phaedriel can't see the good in this user..."! Nice way to turn a new phrase JzG... ++Lar: t/c 21:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The drop that caused Comanche cph to be reported this time was him calling a fellow editor a "fjeldape" which means mountain ape in the edit summary to this diff. If you look at the very top of this entry you will see a more in depth explanation as to why this is a very bad thing to do. Inge 21:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Inge, Barend. I can only say that I am so extremely sorry seeing this word used against any Norwegian. Please don't doubt that the average Dane both likes and respects Norway and its people. For what it is worth, please accept my apologies on his behalf. Valentinian (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Other than also being a Dane, you have no connection that I know of to cph, so it is not your place to apologize for him. You did nothing wrong and shouldn't feel guilty for what he says. More to the point, you shouldn't apologize for him because he might not change his behaviour in the near future. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 16:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no connection to him at all, except that we are both Danes. However, I felt that somebody had to say something, so it might as well be me, so "for what it's worth" does in this case equal something very small. I did not enjoy making that post, believe me, but I like seeing Norwegians being offended even less. Would I have preferred to see the real thing? Yes, by far. Do I think it will happen? No, but I'd love to be proven wrong. Valentinian (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cardsplayer4life for the third time

[edit] Arbitrary break one

Cyde has now blocked User:Cardsplayer4life for a week for, in his words, "Sock puppetry and block evasion, CONTINUED violation of copyright policy, as confirmed by CheckUser". Here's a timeline of my interpretation of what Cards says happened.

  • 22:50, 8 August Cardsplayer4life reinserts the sports logos into the article
  • 23:30, 8 August 2006 Cards makes his last edit for the day
  • 03:47, 9 August Kelly blocks Cards
  • 15:48, 9 August Cards comes back to the computer but isn't logged in. He checks the sports page he edited the day before and finds that his edit was reverted without an edit summary. He reverts back with a similar edit summary as before.
  • 16:15, 9 August Cards now logs in, sees he is blocked and makes a contrite message.

The alternative theory, which Cyde assumes is true above, is that Cards was logged in, received the message saying he was blocked and logged out to intentionally evade his block. In that case the IP address in question would have been recently used by a blocked user (to receive the message) so the autoblocker should have prevented Cards from editing with it. You can see above that Kelly is puzzled why this didn't happen.

If the charitable interpretation above is accepted I think Cards should be unblocked again. The things that might count against it is that Cards has previously edited through his IP address to complain that "the moderators suck", perhaps indicating that he intentionally uses it for edits he wouldn't make with his user account. The lack of autoblock can be explained by Cards logging in and receiving his block message at another computer than he usually uses. I don't have access to checkuser data and I don't know exactly how the system works so a) I may have assumed something that isn't correct and b) it might not be possible to tell anyway.

In any case I'll take no further action in this case. Thanks to everyone who commented. Haukur 09:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • 22:50, 8 August Cardsplayer4life reinserts the sports logos into the article
  • 23:30, 8 August 2006 Cards makes his last edit for the day
  • 03:47, 9 August Kelly blocks Cards
  • 15:48, 9 August Cards comes back to the computer but isn't logged in. He checks the sports page he edited the day before and finds that his edit was reverted without an edit summary. He reverts back with a similar edit summary as before.
  • 16:15, 9 August Cards now logs in, sees he is blocked and makes a contrite message.

[edit] Arbitrary break two

I neglected to mention one obvious thing which I'd better spell out. It's inherently unlikely that Cards would happen to have been logged out and then happened to edit the one page which would get him into trouble unless he had a habit of editing IPnonymously, which hasn't been established. It would seem likelier that he noticed his block, felt it was extremely unfair and decided to evade it, then calmed down a bit and wrote his reply. On balance I would still prefer to unblock the person but I find it unlikely that I'll be able to get a rough consensus for it so I'll go and do other stuff now. Haukur 09:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, it depends on how we define "rough" doesn't it? - brenneman {L} 09:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Block evasion isn't acceptable and never has been. Furthermore, I recommend that you look at that IP's edit history. This isn't an isolated incident. Mackensen (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I did look at the IP's edit history as I lay out above. Haukur 10:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Go back a week. Mackensen (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I did. In the post above I quote a week old edit from that IP's edit history. I said: "The things that might count against it is that Cards has previously edited through his IP address to complain that "the moderators suck", perhaps indicating that he intentionally uses it for edits he wouldn't make with his user account." If there's something else you want to particularly draw our attention to then please go ahead. Haukur 11:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, sorry, missed that. No, that's about all. I'd actually considered posting earlier recommending a long, healthy block on the IP address since it's used for disruption and disruption alone. Mackensen (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This kind of behavior qualifies as disruptive sockpuppetry, for which we tend to hold the main account responsible, particularly if there's overlap in the edits. Mackensen (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Leaving aside the question of whether or not the use of the images is a violation of our copyright policy, Cardsplayer4life was engaged in an edit war. Whether logged in or not, he should have known that reverting was a bad practice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but I don't think it's worth a week-long block. And at least he used detailed edit summaries while Kelly reverted him with the rollback-tool. Haukur 12:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd say edit warring over copyvio content while using a sockpuppet (which has been revealed to be a disruptive sock in other issues) is worth a week-long block. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It was not a copyright violation - it was content that was arguably against our policies (though even that is disputed). The sock, if you want to call the IP address that, was not disruptive. The worst it did was saying "the moderators suck". Haukur 12:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's how I see it: we have an editor who engaged in a brief outburst. The sock allegation has a semi-plausible innocent explanation. He shows evidence of contrition. He is engaging in reasoned debate. He has a fair amount of sympathy. Without for a moment criticising AMIB's block, which seems to me to be justified certainly then and there, could we also agree to unblock? The reason for blocks is to prevent disruption and it seems unlikely at this point that further disruption will occur; it would also seem appropriate to keep Cards on a short leash for a ehile. If he reforms, then we have done a good job and can pat ourselves on the back; if he does not then we will surely have unanimity for a future block. Just zis Guy you know? 13:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Zur? Cyde blocked Cards, not me. I'm just wholeheartedly supporting that block. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
My bad. I meand Cyde, of course, but got distracted by the Man In Black in your sig :-) Just zis Guy you know? 14:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Really, we hand out milder punishment for worse offences all the time. The damage was microscopic, the editor (mostly) congenial, blocks are only preventative. Explain to him that his chances with regards to fair use are well and truly used up, if he says "I understand" we unblock. It's pretty simple. - brenneman {L} 14:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I would support unblocking as a probationary measure. Mackensen (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm repeating my support for an unblock from one of the threads above, just in case, as this issue is all over the page. Mark Dingemanse supported it too btw. Bishonen | talk 14:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

What I find most troubling here is the conduct of Cyde- he seems almost gleeful about the block, and he's going around picking on people who supported unblocking. This is conduct most unbecoming an admin. I just re-read his RFA and found significant opposition to him based people seeing him as sometimes uncivil and overly confrontational. It saddens me that rather than taking this criticism to heart, he's just continuing in his ways. Friday (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we have some links to gleeful/taunting edits, since I'm too lazy right now to find them myself. (We tell noobs to bring diffs when they post here, just spreading the love.) brenneman {L} 15:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Just check Cyde's contributions. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Diffs means diffs. --Cyde Weys 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I was trying, rather clumsily and clearly ineffectively, to point out that you have not been picking on people who supported the unblock. I see one relevant User talk: contrib, and your conversation ended on a mutually respectful "agree to disagree" basis. I honestly don't know to what Friday is referring. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh whoops, I thought you were implying that all of my recent contribs were gleeful & taunting. My bad :-P Cyde Weys 15:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I left off the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags. Trying to be subtly sarcastic just doesn't work I guess. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what an incredibly biased sequence of events. It's missing the other times he reverted to fair use image galleries in violation of policy, as well as the incredibly wonky wikilawyering on his talk page. He made the same excuses for his behavior before and after his anonymous edit, not even fessing up that he had done anything wrong at all. And of course, there was the promise he made before the anonymous edit not to do it again if were unblocked ... though he then went on to make that revert anonymously, rather than even waiting to be unblocked. What we have here is a classic troll trying to widen rifts in the administrator community by playing the innocent user struck down by tyrannical actions, when the truth is anything but. --Cyde Weys 15:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I may have got my timeline mixed up but from all I can see the promise you refer to was made after the anonymous edit. Could you clarify with diffs? Haukur 15:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I've spun out the timeline and added Cyde's diffs. Feel free to improve it. - brenneman {L} 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to clear up a very important misconception. It has been argued above that Cards should have been caught by the autoblocker. Recent improvements in the blocking mechanism allow blocks which don't affect logged-in users, therefore Cards wouldn't have been caught by the autoblocker. That's what happened in this case, which is why I reblocked the IP last night with all editing disabled. That block has run out by now of course, and with a block in effect on the actual username is now moot in any case. Mackensen (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And now, I highly suspect, but cannot prove, that our buddy Cards went through a Tor proxy to make the same reversions again. The edit summary language is very similar at the least. --Cyde Weys 18:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there are a few other users with this particular bug up their butt. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no clue what gave them the idea that trying to make the edits on anonymous proxies would help resolve anything. --Cyde Weys 18:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
There's nothign like goign through a proxy to lose you any friends you might have had :-/ Just zis Guy you know? 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is spread all over the place, but as Bishonen noted above, I also support an unblock at this point, because the week-long block by Cyde was clearly placed as a punitive, not a preventive measure. This goes against the blocking policy. To all involved getting a little heated, I think WP:COOL might offer good advice, in particular its tips to 'take it slow' (point 3) and to 'sometimes just walk away and leave it to others' (point 8). This case is not as urgent as the heated discussion here makes it out to be. In the meantime, though, let's make sure that we don't have a fine editor blocked over this for a week. — mark ✎ 19:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry? You're accusing me of what? My fear is that, given this user's lack of qualms of using proxies or anonymous IPs to make his reversions, if we unblock him, he's simply going to do it with his main account. That is preventative, not punitative. If you look on his talk page he's already made the comment, "I was trying to revert the page that I had already been trying to revert. I just went straight to the page and reverted it." That's a direct quote from him. He doesn't even care about discussing any of the issues, he just wants the page to look the way he wants it to look, policy be damned, and he really only considers these blocks a temporary measure preventing him from doing so. Why in the world should he be unblocked? --Cyde Weys 19:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
He didn't do anything bad after I unblocked him yesterday. In particular he didn't revert the page in question again and his only article-space edit was perfectly fine while his other edits were mostly gracious. Why not give him a chance? If he really does go and revert the page then you can just block him again and there'd be next just about no support for unblocking him. Haukur 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This user doesn't strike me as simultaneously technically savvy enough to go through a proxy and silly enough to make the edit yet again. This might have been some random person trying to stir up more trouble (looking around, sure enough, the usual suspects are already discussing this case). I still say we assume good faith and unblock him. I won't do it myself, though, since I was the one who did the last unblock. Haukur 19:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Continuing to assume good faith in the evidence of bad faith is lunacy. Even without the anon proxy edits it's obvious that this user isn't here for the good of the encyclopedia. Go read some of his statements on his talk page. He doesn't care about discussing, he just wants to revert things so quickly that sometimes "he doesn't bother logging in first". He's a revert warrior. And he certainly doesn't care about any of the relevant fair use issues. And you should actually try using Tor; it doesn't require being technologically savvy at all (unless being able to download, install, and run a program counts as "technologically savvy", but plenty of people have managed with Firefox, AIM, et al just fine). --Cyde Weys 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, continuing to assume good faith in spite of evidence to the contrary is the whole point of the policy. It's appropriate to stop assuming good faith once the evidence for bad faith becomes clear. Quill E. Coyote 03:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel you are mischaracterizing the user. He has many useful edits. He's clearly here to help build an encyclopedia. He's never been blocked before or even received a warning. Haukur 19:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This TOR business seems a bit previous, can you provide any evidence? - brenneman {L} 00:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The IP involved 217.173.129.76 (talk • contribs) is on the Tor open proxy list here (at least as of this timestamp; I assume they change). Thatcher131 (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. So the suggestion now is that this user is really really dumb, and logged in via TOR to repeat the exact actions as before, knowing that there are like two hundred eyeballs on this, probably knowing it would be reverted. Patently ignoring that there is strong support for unblocking them, to boot. While of course it's possible it's also not easily falsifiable.... Sorry, but that stinks more than a high summer roadkill skunk. - brenneman 01:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
That's the first good evidence I've seen that he may have been using a tor proxy to evade a block. It's not conclusive, but it's strongly suggestive. If he is really that stupid (and on this question his edits from 68.32.79.169 are telling), he'll continue disruptive editing and will trip up again soon. So no great harm, having tagged the fish and noted its characteristics, in throwing it back into the river on this occasion. --Tony Sidaway 13:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Brenneman and Haukur: bad faith has not been demonstrated, let alone use of a Tor proxy. Being blocked brusquely may have caused him to evade his block but hey, that's no reason to place a week-long block. I propose to make it a 24 hour block at most, i.e. to lift the block today without further ado (Cyde tells he will be watching him very carefully). As far as I know, Bishonen, JzG, Haukur, Brenneman, Mackensen, Thatcher131, and Friday support unblocking at this point. Can we move on? — mark ✎ 10:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

I have unblocked CardsPlayer4life based on the apparent consensus in the discussion above. While recognizing that there are suspicions this user may be 'more deliberately nefarious' than some think, I believe we run little risk by stretching AGF a bit further. The actual 'damage' the user has done to date was infintessimal... all of five minutes work to address, if that. Our more lengthy disagreements about how to handle him are not his doing. Allowing the user to resume normal editing should thus, if anything, reduce the amount of effort being expended here... we can stop hypothesizing/debating and simply observe what he does going forward. --CBD 13:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable in the circumstances. Particular attention should be paid, however, to any further attempts by that username or the associated IP number to introduce unlicensed material into Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 13:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking editors of anarchism-related articles

I was recently blocked by Stifle for violating WP:3RR on anarchism. Stifle was acting in good faith, and I don't contest the grounds of the block, as he understood them. However, I was reverting the edits of the socks of banned users Thewolfstar and RJII or Hogeye. All three of these users are notorious for ban evasion, as well as for disruptive editing. I'm not sure as to whether or not Stifle was aware of these facts.

I was blocked yesterday, because the obvious sock of one of these sock puppets reported me to WP:3RR. Stifle apparently did not look to deeply into the matter. It seemed obvious to him that I was simply violating WP:3RR. But, I was not. I was reverting the edits of a banned user's sockpuppet, which is a clear exception.

I urge administrators to understand the context of the disputes surrounding these articles. It's very disappointing to find out that you've been blocked for trying to help out. Even the most partisan editors, who are polar opposites, manage to make progress. Only these banned users, and their sock puppets, cause problems. I see more and more good editors of these articles leave Wikipedia out of frustration because nobody is taking the time to understand the disputes, regardless of a number of requests for mediation, requests for comment, requests for arbitration, and more. It's like Groundhog Day: the same thing is repeated every day. --AaronS 13:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit: per a user's suggestion, I made this a bit shorter. --AaronS 14:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of blocked users' edits and reversion of vandalism is not subject to 3RR. Perhaps a note on WP:3RR that this particular article gets a lot of contention? I think people shy away from the mediation, in fact, because it's such a viper's nest over there. Is the Mediation Cabal still operating and still manned by well-meaning folks? All Anarchism related articles need a wet blanket thrown over them to extinguish the flames. Geogre 16:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Good points, and an interesting suggestion, as well. We've got some more neutral editors working on them at the moment, and that seems to have helped quite a bit. It is a bit of a hornet's nest, but for the most part, everybody gets along without causing disruption. It's just that two of Wikipedia's most notorious trolls happen to be very attracted to this part of the encyclopedia. I'm going to suggest adding that note to WP:3RR. --AaronS 16:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Just as a point of historical interest, Anarchism has always attracted the most dedicated warriors (well, except maybe fascism). Today, we have these two, but in the past we had others. No "fart" scribbling vandals, these. These are the ones with a set jaw and an inexhaustible amount of time online. Special kevlar and asbestos ought to be awarded for any neutral and careful people who edit there, because when an editor there goes bad, he or she seems to go all the way bad. Geogre 19:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think any non-self-declared anarchist who gets involved with that page deserves some serious kudos (and protection). If I weren't an anarchist I'd probably avoid it like the plague. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 22:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I say we permanently protect all the anarchism-related articles and assign the job of editing them to a university professor somewhere. After all, the editors there have demonstrated conclusively that anarchy cannot possibly be a stable form of government. ;-) --Carnildo 19:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Seriously. Bring in the philosopher-kings. =) --AaronS 13:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Lol, yeah, I wonder about that sometimes. But in real life, it's easier to kick a trouble maker out of a group than it is online when that trouble maker can come back cleverly disguised (although they rarely seem to do so cleverly). Also, there's the whole idea of autonomous communities--in the real world the rival factions would just go form seperate communities, but we've only got one page here (and if we had more they'd be deleted as pov forks) so we're stuck with each other. Sorry, I know I'm taking this too seriously ;) Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 22:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be fooled by AaronS. He claimed in the comments next to his edits that I'm a sock trying to get around a ban but I'm not. I consider the allegation a personal attack. Hopefully he sincerely thinks I'm a banned sock and not just making a false claim in order to delete the edits of other users with impunity. You could say I am a "sock" in a sense because I use different usernames when editing articles that may get me in trouble in my professional life, like the anarchism article. But as far as I know there are no policies against doing that. But I am not banned and have never been banned from Wikipedia. AaronS shouldn't be throwing claims around like that and system operators shouldn't consider the claim to be true without evidence. The system operators did the right thing by banning him. That'sHot 04:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

*yawn*. By the way, that comment about protecting your professional life is silly. It implies that you either (a) edit under a different user name while at work (which makes no sense), or (b) your employer knows your "real" Wikipedia user name and monitors its activity, even when you're not at work (which is a bit far-fetched). Who do you work for, the NSA? --AaronS 13:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Striver's additions to Talk:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot

Striver (talk • contribs) originally added this comment saying that the terrorist plot foiled was an attempt to get Europe to attack Iran and mentioning a "Pearl Harbor 3", to Talk:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. It was later removed for its irrelevancy, but was subsequently re-added by Striver, who said not to remove comments from talk pages and added an "I told you so". I commented that it should have been removed, and another user concurred, citing that talk pages are not soapboxes and that they're for talking about articles. Then, someone else removed it again, citing the prescribed concerns. Striver re-added the statement, again saying not to remove his comments. Half an hour later, yet another person removed the statement, but User:Irishpunktom reverted. In an edit conflict (I didn't notice the previous two edits), I removed the statement and then explained to Irishpunktom the rationale; I also copied a similar message to Striver's talk page, after seeing that he re-added the statement yet again. Striver responded on my talk page, saying that talk pages are for discussing points-of-view. Once again, yet another editor has removed the statement from the talk page, but I don't picture this being the end. I'm not going to continue to remove Striver's comment (especially since others will anyway), but I think it's quite clear that people want the comment gone. But Striver seems reluctant to accept that. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Let me get this straight: He's making these comments on a talk page? Not the article itself? --Kbdank71 16:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Correct. It appears Striver may have given in as he has changed his statement. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


I haven't read the comments, but aren't talk pages meant to be for discussion? If the comments didn't border on incivility or personal attacks or disclosure of personal info, why should they be removed from talk pages of articles, provided they are related to the discussion? --Ragib 16:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

    • That's what I was thinking also. --Kbdank71 16:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
You raise a good point, but here was my assessment of the problem with the comment. And given the number of times it was removed, people obviously saw it as a potential issue (although perhaps it was just Striver's persistance that suggested to them that perhaps it didn't belong). I personally don't have a problem with him mentioning a conspiracy theory, even if I don't agree with it. But the manner in which he says it and his persistance with pushing the idea that it is true, calling the situation a psyop, could potentially attract even worse debate. Of course, you are free to disagree. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Archiving it rather than deleting may be preferable if people actually start responding to it and it disrupts discussion of the article. Without reliable sources (which I seriously doubt will be forthcoming) this doesn't stand a chance of getting into the article. JChap T/E 17:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with what's said above -- talk page comments are generally excepted from the usual rules -- but I also think this should go into the "Striver file," as the fellow has a pretty serious desire to see the boogey men and hobgoblins discussed everywhere, and he has been disruptive in the past. If he goes beyond muttering and into harassment or more fringe article writing, he may need a mentor -- if one were available and acceptable. Geogre 18:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
His constant POV pushing is not likely to attract many people interested in helping his cause. However, I don't like seeing dissent silenced, so, as long as he sticks to the talk pages to discuss bizarre changes, maintains civility and doesn't become disruptive, then it's no big deal.--MONGO 19:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
We don't mean to silence dissent, I'm sure. It looks like the current post is reasonable as it doesn't silence dissent, but also doesn't go over-the-top with the idea that he's right. From here, people can express their disagreement (or agreement) with the theory, if they want, until the cows come home; no need to remove Striver's comment now, in my opinion. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is Striver Wikipedia's resident conspiracy theorist? Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 20:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
One of the more prominent, sure. But that's just fine; there are plenty of conspiracy theorists in real life, and no matter how wrong or whacky most people (including me) think they are, having those opinions represented and aired here is healthy. Georgewilliamherbert 06:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
"Aren't talk pages supposed to be for discussion?" Yes, but they're expressly meant for discussion of the article, not its subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but summarily removing comments that are not personal attacks on the basis of their irrelevance is unacceptable. Who's going to determine what's relevant and what's not? That's pretty subjective. I'd just go ahead and follow Geogre's suggestion of "adding it to the Striver file", which is already quite thick. Pecher Talk 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/]

The user [[User: has began a series of "childish attacks" this is a personal attack on said user on me after I posted a comment asking as to when the AfD would be closed, seeing as the Afd has been opened for 8 days. He has begun to go to other websites I have posted to and post information from there as a means to disparage me(googling you as others had me). I have warned him on his talk page with the npa, npa2 and npa3 templates. Wildthing61476 16:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not personal attacks... that's stalking(googling? is stalking?). Rather more serious, IMO. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
You can check my talk page for more of his actions in regard to the contested deletion of the an and articles. He keeps blanking his usertalk page, so you have to dig in to find the info there, but I would certainly prefer not to have to hear from him anymore. He has recreated the deleted article once already today and is generally ignoring rules and guidelines, as well as being creepy and rude. Richardjames444 21:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[[User:]] posted personal information (was posted on your page, and no racial epithets were written anywhere!) about my employment along with racial epithets on my talk page. Can we consider a short term ban to settle him down, and then let him participate again on civil terms in a week or so? Richardjames444 00:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

noted from comments on other pages that he seems to have abandoned this user ID and has taken a new one, after a final wave of vandalism to the archived an AFD debate and some user pages- user:bucketsofg and user:Danny Lilithborne were both vandalized after offering help and advice. Hopefully his new ID will be civil and constructive. Richardjames444 15:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sarastro777's user page

This user's user page is dedicated to personal attacks and divisiveness.The user had originally posted a diatribe, basically accusing all non-anti-Israel editors as pawns in a vast conspiracy to modify wikipedia. Another user, User:Oiboy77 who frequently edits hand-in-hand with User:Sarastro777 added a list of what he called "rogue admins". This was removed three times [82] [83] [84] by three different editors as an attack. Sarastro restored the accusation. Sarastro also exhibited poor knowledge of wiki policy and guidelines, with edit summaries such as “What part of bad form to edit other people's userpage do you guys not understand?? Leave it alone! Nobody but me.. everyone is asked to cease” [85], in contradistinction to the wiki policy on user pages and WP:OWN, which was pointed out to him on his talk page [86]

Now the user in engaged in adding a list of snippets from the various editors he disagrees with, and collecting their arguments with him, both on his style as well as on his content, and liberally intersperses his "editorial" commentary on many of them.

At this point, I believe the user is engaged in a gross violation of WP:NPA, WP:Civility, WP:AGF, etc. and I think the user page should have this type of material removed. -- Avi 19:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd support an enforced blanking of that page. --InShaneee 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. El_C 20:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
He's put it back (which I've rolled back), and is arguing ownership. If there's no objection, I will protect if he puts it back again. --InShaneee 20:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The ownership is by the "Community", by bypassing the steps to Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution, you have deemed yourself as "the community" and essentially used your admin tools to try to win a content war with protect. This is not the purpose of the page protect. Sarastro777 23:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

"If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here..." (Please stop posting on my userpage otherwise. You are misinformed.)

Admin User:El_C misused protect to take the upperhand in what is clearly a content dispute after blanking my page. This is a matter of a handful of people upset over what is admittedly controversial material. Wikipedia was made specifically as an open tool to cover controversy. [[87]]

First, I documented Megaphone desktop tool which is hardly an accusation against ALL or even necessarily any Israeli editors. I highly resent your mischaracterization of my sourced material and making me out as some kind of lunatic conspiracy theorist. This is documented and cited in the article here, on my userpage, and from major media outlets.

Second, you are including information written by someone else and using it against me. I have no association with User:OiBoy nor any control over anything he has added. Saying we edit "hand-in-hand" is at best a malicious lie. Just as I cannot prevent you from blanking my userpage, I cannot prevent him from adding things. I requested that ALL editors stop adding material (like this), and now you use this as a basis for another attack against me as claiming ownership. This issue of User:OiBoy being associated with me is a red herring argument to bias other people against me. I have never restored anything he added to my userpage.

Third, the so-called "personal attacks" are in fact quotations by other Editors with some wording I use in some instances to summarize their actions. "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks." WP:NPA I am allowed to share my opinion on matters relating to Wikipedia on my userpage, as is specifically cited as a purpose behind the userpage and is documented on the bottom of my userpage, where you are asked not to blank material. "Another use is to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions about Wikipedia." WP:USERPAGE There are no personal attacks.. I don't call anybody names nor do I attack them. The only things that are "personal" are actual quotations from other editors which is their own words, placed by them in the history record. I have every right to recount these as I see it pertains to Wikipedia, especially on my own userpage.

This ADMIN is bypassing steps to Dispute Resolution by mischaracterizing my actions, and acting as sole judge, jury, and executioner. Repeatedly blanking content on a userpage is arguably Vandalism. Now he has used protect in a content dispute to force the matter to his liking in a persistent state.

Sarastro777 20:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a content dispute, a conduct dispute. El_C 00:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misc Related Conversation

The links are all there Sarastro, the user history cannot be hidden. Please read the links I posted a number of times on your talk page, and see that in this situation, the community is allowed to take action against the fact that you collect these remarks and responses from all over wikiedipa to paint those who disagree with you poorly, as well as what I feel is the insulting ad hominem intimation that all such editors are Israeli pawns. You are beholden to process just as the rest of us are. -- Avi 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Userpage is protected until Sarastro777 demonstrates that s/he is prepared to bring whichever pressing issues to dispute resolution. El_C 21:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's first address the misinformation:

  • "all such editors are Israeli pawns." -- Something never said, again "intimation"/"Your perception"-- not said, not my opinion.
  • I have nothing to do with Oiboy or his edits. I defy you to show something from the edit history where I restored a change he made to my page. In fact I specifically asked all other Editors to quit editing the page altogether repeatedly. Let's quit pretending like this isn't known, if you have something that shows otherise then post it, else you need to quit perpetuating the lies.

Now we can address the hypocrisy:

Controversial material is protected by a somewhat judicial system of Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution. Instead of following this, Administrators have now vandalized all content off my page, put a burden on ME to follow dispute resolution. I don't have a dispute with my own content. The people with the dispute are the people blanking my page. This is as clear as day a twisting of the policies designed exactly to protect this kind of content.

On Wikipedia, and its sister projects, you are welcome to be bold and edit articles yourself, contributing knowledge as you see fit in a collaborative way. So go ahead!

Pretty pathetic that not only can I not edit, the Dispute Resolution system is bypassed to censor me, and I cannot even include anything on my own userpage.... all done by somebody with a picture of Commandante Che on his webpage. The irony is all the self-proclaimed free speech experts, anti-vandalism unit members turned into censors is beyond belief. All it took were just a few quotes lifted precisely from discussion. I guess people with ugly faces can't look in a mirror. Sarastro777 22:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro, this page is not the part of the Dispute Resolution process that you need to be pursuing in order to get your userpage unprotected. Making unfounded [or at least unsourced] accusations of hypocrisy here is not going to do your case any good. Take a break, if you need to, and come back with a cool head. If you're incapable of reaching an agreement with the protecting admins, then you need to take it to RfC, not here. Cheers, Tomertalk 22:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are involved with a project on Judaism then you have a potential serious conflict of interest, as the material in question deals with "Jewish Activists" deemed in the media to be colloborating with the Israeli Gov't. We need comments from people without identifiable sources of possible bias. It's nothing personal, but the possible bias is obvious enough. Hopefully you can understand that. Sarastro777 23:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Because I'm a member of WikiProject Judaism I have a "potential [sic] serious conflict of interest"? In what material? There is no material in question. All I have said is that this page is to give notice to administrators of activities of interest. It is, categorically, not a part of the dispute resolution process. I have no interest, nor I'm sure does anyone else here, in your comments about "people [with] identifiable sources of possible bias", as they're not only an obvious strawman, a violation of WP:AGF, an identifiable possible violation of WP:NPA, a clear breach of WP:CIV and can serve no rhetorical function other than to poison the well here. That said, I'll paraphrase myself for your benefit: either take this opportunity [not on this page] to resolve your dispute with the admins involved, or take it to dispute resolution [again, not this page]. TIA. Tomertalk 00:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't have a dispute with my own content. The people with the dispute are the ones that have blanked the material from my userpage. They have bypassed Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution which is why we are having this discussion right now Sarastro777 23:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You do indeed have a dispute by virtue of displaying your criticisms of specific editors on your userpage; in order to take this dispute to its logical conclusion, you need to go through the formal DR channels, which also allow for others to comment. It cannot remain in stasis. El_C 23:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I find Sarastro777's complains about alleged bypassing Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution particularly funny in the light of his active participation in this recent ArbReq. I already commented on his behavior there and sorry to say that it didn't improve. And now this adorable Jewish conspiracy mongering and calling WP admins "fascist censors"... ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
One would think our involvement in your arbitration hearing, and your "material" on the page that has been blanked would be grounds to recuse yourself from leaving comments like that on grounds of conflict on interest. Sarastro777 23:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see: so anyone who had the insolence of responding to Sarastro777's unfounded (this is per ArbCom) accusations, or who is "involved with a project on Judaism", cannot comment. Thank you for making this clear, let's make it a policy. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It obviously still pains you to recall that in fact another Editor initiated the Arbitration and I merely provided some material I felt they would find relevant to the accusations. If I had understood the process better, the 'evidence' would have been presented from the get-go. Sarastro777 00:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Living Person: Barbara Schwarz

This article has verifiability and neutrality issues and there are few reliable sources that are not primary sources.

Background

  • Schwarz files a lot of requests for information under FOIA
  • She has sued over her FOIA requests
  • Someone claiming to be her on google groups, says the purpose of the requests is to prove she is
    • the granddaughter of Eisenhower
    • and daughter of L. Ron Hubbard.
  • The sources for this article are sparse
  • The article has survived two deletion discussions - and I think she deserves some kind of article
  • Main source is article in the Salt Lake Tribune (official version - pay to view full text - potential copyright vio) about her activities

The tone of the article is not good, and my efforts to whittle away at it yesterday - get some sourced, delete some eggregious stuff - gained little headway. I made another attempt today here. Any advice/clarification/etc would be appreciated --Trödel 21:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Niuke it. The principal source is a copyvio, life's too short. Just zis Guy you know? 21:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
That is just about certainly really Schwarz on usenet. The article (last time I looked at it, during the most recent afd) definitely at least needed npov cleanup. I've read a bunch of Schwarz's legal filings and they're as bizarre as they sound (the stuff about Eisenhower, the stuff about being married to Marty Rathbun and trying to get him out of the clutches of supposed Scientology kidnappers, etc). Schwarz has been agitating for a long time to get the article deleted, and per her less-than-extreme-notability and Formosa's Law, that might be the best solution. Any new article should be closely sourced. Her FOIA stuff has been written up in various legal journals and doing a closely sourced article should be possible if someone insists on doing that. I don't think the article is terribly valuable to the Scientology series. Schwarz is very visible to Scientology observers because she's a heavy poster to the Usenet group, but her actual effect on things has not been all that large. Phr (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editor not made aware of public accusations

Why is it that I discover now that various colourful accusations have been made against me? Did anyone think to notify me? Was I to be sentenced in absentia? This is utterly ridiculous and exposes the very worst of Wikipedia. I expect comment. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't attibute to malice that which can be easily explained by ineptitude. Everyone assumed you knew about it, so no one contacted you. There is no cabal. --mboverload@ 23:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
While I did not participate in the thread, I did read it, and I too assumed you were aware. Sorry -- Samir धर्म 23:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
But Samsara, you did know about it. This appears to be you taking part in a discussion about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Why are you bringing this up twice? In that diff, you see me respond to a comment by KarlV. Even if I do now see that someone made a reference to ANI in that same discussion, I should not have to go to the German Wikipedia to get my news, should I? Interesting that you were the main inquisitor. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Where was I the main "inquisitor" and why is it "interesting"? Are you maintaining that pschemp, with whom you edit closely, didn't tell you what you were being accused of? Are you saying you edited a page about it on the German Wikipedia, but didn't read it? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, Samsara is a big boy. He can read for himself. Why would I tell him about anything? pschemp | talk 02:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, having you put words in my mouth is my favourite past-time! Big hug. :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about, and to be honest, it's this attitude that has caused a lot of the problems. You're an admin. If another admin asks you a question, the best thing is just to answer it. It's not a trap, just a question. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly great to hear that you're such a specialist in assuming good faith. It will help you avoid questioning other admins' actions in future, and save everyone a bunch of time! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Samsara, please don't edit the archive where the discussion took place. You should respond here on the active page. If you want to quote part of the old discussion so you can make a comment or reply, that would be better than editing the archive where no one will see it. Thatcher131 (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Jeepers, I said quote part of the discussion. That was a bit excessive. (I'm sorry I brought it up). Thatcher131 (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV revert and blanking war at Bob Brinker

Bob Brinker could use an admin/mediator again, to break up a months long edit war, complete with multiple daily removal, reinsertion, removal, etc., of three links that are not 100% positive about Brinker. Links have also been vandalized to make them not work. I attempted to mediate, without success. Some discussion has begun, but even other's comments on the talk page are edited or removed completely. Nearly all of the reverting and removal is done by anon IP accounts, without comment. I suggest semi-protection, to stop the anon-without-comment editing, and suggest mediation that is beyond my ability. ॐ Priyanath 01:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It continues today, with User:71.134.43.125 yet again (he's already received 4 warnings and a block for his careful editing on Bob Brinker), blanking an entire section of comments on the talk page, and blanking the links, without comment, that have been in dispute. ॐ Priyanath 20:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sockpuppets at Talk:Susan Polgar

I have a strong suspicion that the anon IP posting at Talk:Susan Polgar is the banned User:Amorrow. FloNight would know more about this. Phr (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Amorrow at work. i semi-protected the article. Looks like he has been busy. I think he has started several articles and one Mfd. --FloNight talk 04:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page and talk page messages from retired/departed users

Occasionally I will see a comment that's of interest, click on the username to look at his/her user page or talk page, and find a message indicating that the user has left Wikipedia permanently. This always suddens me, but is of greater concern when the page not only indicates that the particular user has departed, but urges others to leave the project as well.

Are "retired"/"departed" users permitted to leave messages on their userpages or talk pages expressing their disgruntlement with the project and encouraging other users to leave as well? Should the message be left up for a short time so friends will know what happened to the person, and then blanked? Is there, or should there be, any policy on this issue? Newyorkbrad 01:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly think it matters; good byes have far less weight than the people leaving them realize. --Cyde Weys 02:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
No reason to treat the user page of someone who has "left" the project any differently than a normal user page. Unless there is something particularly toxic on it, simply leave it alone. - brenneman {L} 02:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Let the goodbye note stay. It could maybe be argued that having statements encouraging others to leave the project is counterproductive, but, as Cyde says, very few read those notes, and second, deleting stuff like that has the potential of stirring up more hate and bickering from the departed wikipedian: 1) Someone leaves and writes a note about why, maybe that the admins here suck. 2) An admin deletes said note. 3) The displeased wikipedian notices it and re-creates the page along with a flaming note on WP:AN and god knows where else about how this proves his point and how wikipedia is ran by tyrants, etc 4)Flaming and silly debates ensues. It's not worth it. Shanes 02:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
If someone leaves with a reason, there is nothing against others to know that reason. If we would know why good editors are leaving wikipedia, we actually would be able to improve it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eddie Johnson (basketball)

Edward "Fast Eddie" Johnson Jr., a former NBA basketball player was arrested for pedophilia. Eddie Johnson (basketball) was NOT arrested for pedophilia. Unfortunately, the accusation has made it's way to the wrong page. The current page is correct but there are history's that have the false accusation. Per Living Bio's I have seen entries with libelous claims get permanently deleted. I am not sure if this is policy or not but it may deserve a look. I am not sure if regular admins can do this or if it's a bureaucrats job. Someone should go through the hisotry and permanently delete the entries with the false accusation content. --Tbeatty 03:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • It's not a libelous claim -- it's an obvious and understandable mistake. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆
    • Granted, it doesn't meet the definition of libel because it lacks malicious intent but it is due to a non-thorough check of sources. Due diligence was not done before the accusation was made. There is no need to retain that false history on a living persons bio. It is an honest mistake of a wikipedia editor but a mistake nonetheless that does not need to follow the subject into eternity. No one should be able to get a page that accuses him of child molestation. This has happened before and the result was delete. Only living person bio's get this specific treatment. --Tbeatty 05:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Look for a user with Oversight permission (there are 25 of them). Thatcher131 (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
We should not alter history like that unless we have to. The current version of the article clearly explains the error, and I don't think anyone is going to get confused by some version buried in the article history saying the wrong thing, especially since the edit summaries show what happened. If the NYT makes an error like that, they print a correction. They don't go and scrub their archives except maybe in extreme circumstances, if at all. According to the article, the same error occurred in multiple media reports; we're actually in better shape than them, since our old article revs normally aren't indexed by search engines and databases, while news stories usually are. Phr (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] zomg everyone look at da GoldToeMarionette case!!111oen

Someone's trying to add that garbage again. I gotta admit, I give (her/him) credit for persistance, but it's been, what, a month now since the block and (s)he is still going on about it being a bad CheckUser? Sockpuppet bashing time, anyone? --Avillia (Avillia me!) 05:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless some admins want to reconsider the exhaustion of community patience ban I'm pretty sure he's under, User:PoolGuy and his socks should be reverted as edits by a banned user. He creates lots of sockpuppets, and usually spams a similar manifesto. Kevin_b_er 05:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I was foolish enough to respond to him and he pretty much confirmed himself to be PoolGuy, see User_talk:Ashibaka#Request_your_attention_to_the_GoldToeMarionette_case Ashibaka tock 14:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recall redux

(No, not Redux. A fine 'crat.) FYI, there's a lively discussion going on about the recall process at Category talk:Administrators open to recall - may you be aware of it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some light Colbertorism

Eli Pariser decided to join in the fun on the Colbert Report and mumbled that Stephen had learned that a majority of Americans thought Hitler was a great guy on Wikipedia. Fortunately he mumbled it and Colbert was speaking over him at the time (and it's just... not... funny anymore), so the damage is pretty light, but the more eyes, as usual, the better. JDoorjam Talk 07:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I, mboverload, certify JDoor's testimony before AN/I to be truthful in whole. --mboverload@ 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
We also have a user trying to change the redirect on wikiality to an article again. Perhaps protection is still in order if it continues. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 09:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking that it should not even be a redirect, let alone an article. Then I noticed that it was a redirect to another article on a made up word by Colbert, which was even more disheartening. If they have to exist, they should both be redirects to Colbert or his show. They are dictionary definitions, neologisms and extreme fancruft. -- Kjkolb 10:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually you should read the articles. --mboverload@ 11:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Only tangentially related, but I caught some Colberorism on Stephen I of Hungary last night. Six hours old, so there didn't see much sense in pursuing a block/warning the IP responsible. -- nae'blis 16:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:ParalelUni

How's this for a comment: [88]. Hey, an admin adds {{unaccredited}} to an unaccredited college, that makes it a great thing that the admin's sister recently died and let's hope the admin dies soon as well! Just zis Guy you know? 11:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I pinged JoshuaZ who threw the first block and he added 48 hours for you. Definitely someone to watch. Thatcher131 (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Nasty piece of work, that one. Just zis Guy you know? 14:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit too AGF and policy oriented to give the user a longer block, but I'd like to make it clear that if another admin wishes to extend my block, I will not object. JoshuaZ 16:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
After about 6 users telling me that this should be an indefinite block I have done so (it didn't help matters that there were about 5 other edits as virulent as the above one). Is there a community consensus for this ban? JoshuaZ 20:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Endorse Because of his behavior and because he is only here to shill for his diploma mill. Thatcher131 (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptions by User:Kmaguir1 (and meatpuppet User:Truthseekers)

Please see Judith Butler and its talk page. User:Kmaguir1 is disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT, and ignores the process of WP:CONSENSUS. Examination of his edit history, mine, and those of other users will show that I've tried to work with him, and have helped improve his edits, but then he unilaterally persists on inserting the same disputed paragraphs, over and over, ignoring Talk page discussions. It's clear he's on a crusade, editing only destructively rather than adding constructively. Please advise on how we should proceed. Thanks,--Anthony Krupp 15:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User: Kwame Nkrumah

Hi, I have been referred to this page by another Wikipedia admin, User:Stifle. I recently complained on the 3RR board about a possible violation [89] which User:Stifle ruled to be a no apparent violation, since he could not concretely link the two user accounts. However, he did point out something strange about the account here as well as notifying Kwame Nkurah to leave his posts along on his talk page, [90]. Immediately after, User:Kwame Nkrumah proceeded to harass me [91] (see edits at 19:27, 19:38 and 19:39 August 10), the last of which he ended up deleting MY OWN response on MY OWN talk page. I reverted these posts [92] and responded as follows on WP User:Stifle's page as follows: [93]. My post was immediately stalked (see [94]) and Stifle replied that he is going to bed (see posts between 19:59-20:11, [95]) which I hoped were going to be enough to get this guy off my back (I made no responses to the Admin's replies, I did not retribute or do anything against Kwame Nkrumah, nor was I planning on posting on this page, since all I want is for this person to leave me alone). Kwame Nkrumah seemed to have settled down himself, making no responses since Stifle left posts on mine and his Talk pages. However, upon waking up this morning, I find another harassing post by Kwame Nkrumah on my Talk page, [96]. I'm sorry that I had to resort to posting here, but this is the most vengeful Wikipedian I have ever seen--I have never had to deal with ANYONE like this and I demand that his stalking/harassment of me stop. This guy obviously does not understand basic words, so I'm hoping you can offer some insight either through talk or action that will make him stop.. Thanks, --Palffy 15:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add that 3 minutes prior to his post on my Talk page this morning (07:10 August 11), this user proceeded to reverse the previously contested article using his suspected User: Spunti username, [97], at 07:07 August 11. Can someone else also check Ips on these two users?..I still have trouble believing that this is not the same person. --Palffy 15:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My POV:

  1. I did three reverts, he put a 3RR warning on my talk page, I removed it, Stifle told me that removing warnings is not allowed, Stifle put back the 3RR warning
  2. Palffy did three reverts, I put a 3RR warning on his talk page, he removed it, I added it back with a copy of Stifle message to explain that removing warnings is not allowed, he removed it, I added it back
  3. Palffy denounced a 3RR break by me that was not, accused me of sockpuppetry, and now of "stalking" (or something like that)

--Kwame Nkrumah 15:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS BLATANT STALKING!!! He has bookmarked my Contributions page and is checking it every 5 minutes!! This is really out of control..Oh, and instead of minding his own business, the same thing that I described happens, [98]. --Palffy 15:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. It is customary (and sign of civility) to inform a user you have just denounced him on this page;
  2. You changed a page I have in my watchlist, that's why I noticed your edit.
  3. It is not possible to watchlist a contribution page.
  4. You are keeping on removing warning tags from your talk page.
--Kwame Nkrumah 15:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
More stalking, [99] by user. --Palffy 16:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have requested that the two users simply leave each other alone, as this confrontation is clearly not getting anywhere. Cowman109Talk 19:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikistalking and home email

User:Travisthurston is wikistalking me and has sent an abusive email to my home. This user is a student of altmed and objects to my placement of the pseudoscience category despite these issues being referenced on the pseudoscience page. If anyone can make him stop, I'd be grateful. Mccready 15:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break Mccready! I sent you a polite email as a courtesy, and I didn't send it to your home. It was sent through the Wiki contact section. The Wiki Admin should review all of your edits and determine who is really the disruptor here. If Wikistalking is defined by me changing your biased, uninformed edits, then I'm guilty. But you have no right to change the definitions of medical treatments. You are not a doctor, you don't receive the treatments and you clearly are not an expert in any of these fields...Places that I think Mccready has vandalized; Chiropractic, Naturopathic medicine, Alternative medicine, Vertebral subluxation, Osteopathy, Acupressure, Acupuncture. The list goes on and on. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mccready Many people have asked that he discusses these edits in the talk page, he has refused. Please also note the many disputes he has caused with users.

[edit] Block request for user Alniko 203.199.213.66 and 203.199.213.67

Please block the user Alniko from editing Thiruvananthapuram. Many users have warned him many times in his talk page, but still not willing to listen. The same person runs hate blogs against the city

-- Sathyalal Talk to Sathya 16:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Condoleeza Ricecrispies

I have indefblocked User:Condoleeza Ricecrispies. Apart from the name, this account seems to have been created only to attack User:Aknorals and revert edits of this user (Liberatore, 2006). 16:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Good block. Jkelly 16:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wikkipedia

Wikkipedia (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) is apparently a bona fide account, but I suppose this username is in violation of WP:UN ("Confusing, misleading, or troublesome usernames: ... Names that include commonly used Wikipedia software or community terms, or imply an official position on Wikipedia"). I'm not quite sure what to say to this user in such a situation, though, or where to report it; and that's why I just dump it here on the WP:ANI doorstep. Sandstein 18:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

At first his contributions did not appear to be malicious, so I simply left a note on his talk page requesting that he get a new account, but now he is getting into controversial issues by revert warring at Parkinson's Disease. I'm tempted to block the account indefinitely for violating WP:UN policies should he continue editing without addressing my concerns on his talk page. I avoided it at first so an autoblock wouldn't interfere. Cowman109Talk 19:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Tojo Thatcher131 (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cicero Dog evading block... again

Cicero Dog (talk • contribs) is evading his indefinate block using 88.111.131.251 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log). He has made 4 personal attacks with this IP [100][101][102][103][104]

Thanks Computerjoe's talk 19:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocks or investigations needed

Could an admin please block 64.34.166.88 and 205.188.117.74 per the vile edits at User_talk:JzG/Laura which appear to be a continuation of a situation described above beginning after User:ParalelUni's block. You will have to check history as the edits have been reverted, thank goodness. These IP's appear to have other, non-problematic edits but an admin should be able to tell whether there are any factors weighing against at least a short-term block. If this has already been taken care of, please disregard this notice. Newyorkbrad 22:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Of the two IP's you mention 205.188.117.74 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log) is an AOL account, so it is dynamic and long blocks probably won't help. The other, 64.34.166.88 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log) have been blocked for a week. --TeaDrinker 22:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/m/Wikipedia%7EAdministrators%27_noticeboard_IncidentArchive127_d80b.html"