Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive129

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
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
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:El_C Vandalism by Administrator(Removing Warnings)

Wikipedia:Removing_warnings: "Removing warnings for vandalism from one's talk page is also considered vandalism...Editors may be subject to a minor block for archiving prematurely so as to hide warnings." He didn't archive, he outright deleted the warning. Per Wikipedia:Removing_warnings he needed to use the proper method of {warning-for-removal} if he felt a template was being used incorrectly.

Furthermore WP:VAND states: Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism.

Tag Added: 22:59, 10 August 2006 Diff: [[1]]

Elapsed time: 17 minutes

Tag Removed: 23:16, 10 August 2006 Diff: [[2]]

Sarastro777 22:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

First, may I say, please don't troll. El_C is a responsible admin and there is no evidence of vandalism, therefore your misusing the warning templates. 216.78.95.229 23:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting coming from someone with only three contributions. Obviously you are either from another IP or a user who does not want to post these messages under their name. Paul Cyr 02:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no unqualified right to hand out warnings at will. Many people consider removing warnings inappropriate, but not in all circumstances. AFAICT, this was an ongoing dispute about the contents of your userpage, and there was existing discussion about it here on AN/I (which seems now to have disappeared?) in which several administrators were already involved. Given these circumstances, the appropriate course of action would have been to engage in the discussion here, or initiate the dispute resolution process, not issuing a warning. Labelling someone a vandal is not helpful, and will likely antagonise anyone who would otherwise be sympathetic towards you. --bainer (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
FYI, the archived AN/I entry is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive125#Personal Attack by User:Sarastro777. -Will Beback 02:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Attempting to dig up dirt on me (not the subject of complaint) is not going to distract from the fact an Administrator bypassed all procedure and deleted a warning tag, completely against the rules (above). This Admin was blanking my userpage and I was not informed of this incident board until later by an entirely different user. Again, if Admin disagrees he is vandalizing then there is a procedure to remove the tag which does not involve deleting it himself 17 minutes later. Don't attack me because HE broke the rule which is very explicit above. Sarastro777 04:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not an isolated incident. El-C have done this to me as well (removal of my attempts to resolve disputes with her). She has hard time dealing with critism in a comunicative way. She either drop the whole subject of try to remove her opponent - this at least have been my expiriance. It seems she thinks that Wikipedia is a zerosum game. Zeq 09:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

How about you guys give us the full context before just piling on? --mboverload@ 09:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to me, the policies don't give any "context" where it says they don't have to be followed (?) Not sure what you are looking for here. Sarastro777 15:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, All Wikipedia policies are applied according to context. Slac speak up! 19:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The 'context' is that Sarastro777 is irate that his 'manifesto' was removed from his userpage, and is now working at a block for disruption and trolling. --InShaneee 19:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This guy is a master of double standards. In that 'manifesto' he blatantly implies that I am an Israeli government agent, but doesn't say it outright, obviously in a weak effort to avoid being blocked for personal attacks. Schrodingers Mongoose 02:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The only part on my userpage that mentioned 'rogue admins' was not added by me, but by OiBoy. I did document several very insulting and inappropriate personal attacks such as the one above made by you. Obviously the people catalogued were not proud of their behavior or the page would not have been censored. Quoting two news sources and excerpting from logs gets twisted into a "manifesto" and a "conspiracy theory." Rather than address the vandalism, which is the subject of the notice, opponents smear me personally to distract from the real complaint. Sarastro777 20:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets not forget Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive127#User:Sarastro777's user page and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive54#Sarastro777. This user has a history here. -- Avi 01:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azskeptic (talk • contribs)

Azskeptic has threatened another user on this site using personal information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ParalelUni#Blocked

"Spike, stop it. Your identity is known and if you keep making threats a mental health evaluation will be asked for in your county court to see if help can be given to you. Sorry to the administrators to witness such a meltdown in public from a SC medical school student. Azskeptic 22:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)"

I ask that this statement be removed and this user be banned. He knows this user from another site and this is def. cyber-stalking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.65 (talk • contribs) .

This drops, and Azskeptic is forgiven.
Enlarge
This drops, and Azskeptic is forgiven.
After advice from other admins, Azskeptic has already removed that threat, and rightly so, making threats such as this sets a poor example for other users. However I will not take any further action; Azskeptic was not acting out of malice, but (over)reacting to the most despicable trolling that I have ever encountered. Any rational user would forgive Azskeptic for this transgression. --bainer (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not actually a threat you know. He's jocular, although angry, and saying that the fellow needed psychiatric help. That's help, not incarceration. It's still inappropriate, and it's well removed, but let's take it easy with this "everything is a threat" bit. Geogre 02:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Jocularity about this sort of thing is not something we should appreciate. Any comment about taking matters off-wiki into users' real life has to be treated seriously in my opinion. Metamagician3000 07:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
(Not an admin) Having responded to the issue, when it was posted at WP:PAIN, I can verify that Azskeptic retracted the offending statement [3]. It wasn't the best idea, but I'd heavily encourage anyone to take a closer look at the intense trolling surrounding that whole incident, before reaching any final decision. Luna Santin 07:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
It looks like Spike has been banned, and quite properly so. This person has shown a sick mentality, and I understand the extreme provocation; I just don't think we should ever be too quick to dismiss statements of intention to interfere with someone's personal life as being mere jokes. There have been too many cases where it has actually happened. In the circumstances, I'm not saying any action should be taken against Azskeptic, who obviously realised quite quickly that s/he'd done the wrong thing - just making a general observation to my wise colleagues. Metamagician3000 07:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of the actions of Spike I see no excuse for this behaviour. There is never an excuse for threatening someone off wikipedia regardless of what they've done. You stop talking and report it on the proper pages if you can't remain civil and within the policies. I don't know the history but the IP has indicated this has happened before, and I don't see any blocks on this person. That is something that seems highly inappropriate about this situation.--Crossmr 23:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggest that the related thread on WP:PAIN should also be closed. Newyorkbrad 23:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Why should it be closed? Crossmr brings up some excellent points. Regardless of the situation, what this user did was not something that can be swept under the proverbial rug. Doing nothing sends the message that this kind of behavior on Wikipedia is okay in certain situations. Is this the message that wikipedia wants people to get about how to interact here? MiloMein 03:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POINT violation by PEAR

PEAR seems to be gaming the system, using Wikipedia to make a point. Please see user's page. However, I cannot see cause to issue a block so I placed a warning on the user's discussion page instead. --Yamla 21:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT's proper name is Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please explain in detail what the disruption is that you're claiming this user is doing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I should point out that this is exactly why I am not blocking the user. As I noted on the user's discussion page, the user does not seem to be disrupting Wikipedia. However, the user is most definitely gaming the system. --Yamla 21:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong on that userpage; at it's current version, it is just listing his edits/milestones, which many Wikipedians do. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you notice that the pages he edited, when read as a sentence, suggest that the Bush family is responsible for the September 11 attacks and John F. Kennedy assasination? That cannot be construed as coincidence. Hyenaste (tell) 21:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see my message to Yamla [4] regarding this coincidence, which is nothing more than a coincidence. --PEAR 22:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely ridiculous to try to claim that's a coincidence, of course. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose this claim is more rediculous than the claim that a bullet could go through two people multiple times without even being scratched or having blood on it? Or the claim that the 3 first (and only) large buildings to collapse due to fire all did so on the same day at the same place? What I am trying to say is, coincidences happen everyday. People need to be more understanding of this. --PEAR 22:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
hey he's a pov warrior anyone surprised?i am --Golbez 22:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Who me? What's a POV warrior? (I'm new here, I just finished my 100th edit) --PEAR 22:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
(de-indent) While you did make me chuckle, it's ludicrous that you expect us to believe that the following five consecutive articles edited over three minutes were not thought of beforehand: Bush Family, IS, responsible, For, September 11, 2001 attacks. -- Samir धर्म 00:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Samir, the third article I editted was Responsibility not responsible.
--PEAR 00:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
My guess is that you couldn't find responsible then. Don't get me wrong though. I think it's benign enough to stay on your userpage (and pretty clever). -- Samir धर्म 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I couldn't think of any constructive edits I could make to responsible because it's just a redirect.
--PEAR 01:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose PEAR is improving Wikipedia articles to illustrate a point, which is different from disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Except for the disruption caused by this AN/I thread due to the ambiguity in disruptiveness caused by point-illustration... *head explodes* —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-13 01:17Z

Which is more important: the disruption part or the point-proving part? And what point is being proven? Hyenaste (tell) 01:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what this has to do with WP:POINT...this is just a misuse of userspace as a soapbox for conspiracy theories. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also a blatant indicator that this editor likely has little interest in stowing his conspiracy theories and POV issues. --Golbez 02:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 : I'd say let the user keep it. The edits have been harmless and/or helpful, many people have various political statements on their user pages, as long as the user continues to make useful edits we shouldn't be too worried. I'm more concerned that the user initially claimed it was a concidence and then acknowledged that it was deliberate. Lying and taking up our time as a result is disruptive and will inevitable make further work with the user difficult. If the user becomes a serious POV pushing problem then we will deal with it then. JoshuaZ 02:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Why did I ever say it was deliberate?
--PEAR 15:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The edits may be harmless, but the list of them on PEAR's User page are not. I would suggest an MfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, for goodness sake. As things stand, there is no disruption of Wikipedia being caused by the Userpage, the contributor's edits are constructive - so where exactly is the problem? That s/he chooses to make a political statement on the Userpage using the first 5 edits in a witty and original manner is not reason for hysteria. The subsequent edits suggest to me that this is an editor who is probably here to do positive work. Let's not alienate someone over a non existent "problem" that is being imagined for no good reason. Whatever happened to WP:AGF? If this new account becomes problematic in the future, deal with it then, but let's not bash a potentially valuable contributor about the head needlessly. Time to move on. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, PEAR hasn't done any harmful edits, but (s)he just did a number of edits that are not constructive, leaving a "Hi" on a number of seemingly random user talk pages (possibly found the users to target from recent changes). I assume he's doing this to quickly get to 150 or 200 edits so he can keep his milestone structure in line while continuing his sentence structure. Whitejay251 16:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to promote WikiLove by saying Hi to random users. It seemed like a good idea. Since I recieved complaints that it might confuse people, I've decided to instead put my efforts towards welcomming new users.
--PEAR 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

<-- On the topic of sequential edits made to prove a point, I'd submit the case of Über_Nerd_2000 (talk • contribs). His contributions were clearly intended to spell out a personal attack. On the matter of PEAR, the listing on his user talk page is not a simple copy of his contributions log, so the arrangement does not appear coincidental. -Will Beback 21:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

POV edits notwithstanding, PEAR has a pattern of disruptive edits. For example, he nominated the article Wiktionary for speedy delete on the grounds of not being notable. He later altered a welcome message on a user's talk page, changing it slightly and removing the original editor's signature and adding his/her own. — ERcheck (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Icon ads spam making it like Wikipedia promotes commercial sites

Regularly, ads icons are inserted in front of external links, that make it look like Wikipedia treats them special, promoting or endorsing those sites. This gets worse now with the templates used for external links to IMDb, MusicBrainz, etc.

We really could use a specific, explicit point of policy against this (and a direct WP:ICONAD or WP:SPAMICON or something), that could be immediately cited in the edit summary for removing or reverting this spam without long discussions with each "new user" doing the spamming for those sites. We could also mention it in bold as a NoInclude warning in the related templates, so as to remove plausible denial to future offenders.

-- 62.147.37.34 23:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Just revert it like it was normal spam. Plus, it is a violation of fair use rules to use images in this manner. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Image:MusicBrainz Album Icon.png is supposedly GFDL, though. [5] --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but we do not need icons, IMHO, to denote links to random websites. Just remove them. If there is any more problems, come see us. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I think getting some background may be useful, from the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject_MusicBrainz, for example. They may have some reasoning you're unaware of. · rodii · 00:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not opposed to the linking, since I have used template-links for FOTW, but the main issue for discussion is the little icon that appears next to the link. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
We should get rid of these even if the MusicBrainz project wants to keep them. We would not insert Apple logos all over Wikipedia even if there was an Itunes project that wanted to keep them. Yeah, Musicbrainz is a .org and releases some stuff under free licenses, but the interesting stuff is under CC-NC, making it nonfree, and who knows what will eventually happen with it. This sounds like Gracenote all over again. Fool me once... Phr (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't care if it were Feed the Children.org, personally, as that's them, and we're us. We don't priviledge links, and putting an identifying graphic in front of a link is priviledging or deprecating. We don't do that. Geogre 02:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
it's not as simple. We privilege competent and important sites for being competent and important. This is a content dispute like any other, to be addressed both on a case-by-case basis and by policy debate (what sort of icons do we want, at all?). dab (ᛏ) 09:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Respectfully, Dab, we priviledge the good ones by inclusion or by classification within the article. The question raised here is, I think, wider than a particular article, as it is asking for policy on the use of graphical elements with links. In the absence of policy we do what? That seems to be the crux of it. My version would be "in the absence of policy, we make an article look like all the others and do not use graphical elements in links, whether the links are good or bad." We can, in text body, say, "See Linktext for more information," or, in the links, "Linksite: An excellent review of the subject," but I would suggest that inserting graphical elements is a bad idea. It is a bad idea for a variety of reasons, but the chief one is the one the questioner brought up: it makes the link special on a universal basis and without explanation. Geogre 12:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying, this is a case for WP:VP/P, not for admin intervention. I tend to be generally anti-icons, but there are various icons in use with external links, and some templates even have built-in links to external databases. dab (ᛏ) 14:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
With the caveat that this is indeed the wrong place for this, I'd be against any sort of icon propogation in links. It's decoration (which is avowedly against fair use, as we all now know), and even if it's a free-use image, it's tacky and prejudicial. -- nae'blis 15:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any of those templates (e.g. Template:Imdb) including icons. This spewing of Musicbrainz icons might be an example of BEBOLD but should be reverted as BRD. They are a departure from existing practice that's existed for a good reason. There's nothing wrong with a VPP policy discussion but the initial state of that discussion should be with the icons gone, not with them presented as a fait accompli to possibly be reversed. Phr (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should be putting icons in front of links. They're just reference external links, they should be treated the same as any other. Images should really only be used in an article as necessary, not gratuitously for decoration. Remember, we are making an encyclopedia that is to be as freely and widely redistributable as possible. The excess images might get in the way of that. --Cyde Weys 15:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the insidious thing, the rationale for these icons is that Musicbrainz has made the icon itself GFDL. All we need next is for Discount Viagra Spam dot Com to make some GFDL icons and start spewing those in the encyclopedia too. Phr (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent summary, User:Geogre @ 12:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC). Sorry if I wasn't very clear about two things:

  • I have nothing against MusicBrainz, or against external links to MusicBrainz, or against templates for external links to MusicBrainz (and IMDb, etc.).
  • I am only very concerned about the Pandora box of those little spam icons that keep getting added to external links, and thus make some sites look special and endorsed. And the templates just make it easier to spam (the spam icon on the MusicBrainz template stayed for 10 days until I reverted it, and is already on display on 400+ articles).

Also:

  • To answer User:Phr, it's not a matter of BEBOLD (because of the persistent additions after some debates), but the lack of an explicit point of policy against it: those icons keep getting added or sneaked in -- today again it was sneaked in for the 3rd or 4th time by CyberSkull who just sneaks it in every time he works on the template, and just shrugs that MusicBrainz is nonprofit when called on his sneaking it again.
  • Besides, after all those putting back the spamicon, isn't there ground for a Wikipedia:Checkuser of the false newuser User:Preacher Bob against User:CyberSkull (sneaked it 3 or 4 times) and User:Cparker (asked for it on the talk page)?

Last but not least, User:Dbachmann is right about my posting here, of course: all my apologies for forgetting to mention here that this message was actually crossposted for

-- 62.147.39.42 02:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leyasu sock blocked

I have blocked VandalismCorrecter (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) as a likely sock of Leyasu (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). This newcomer has also been using surprisingly deceiving edit summaries ([6] [7]) and removed numerous references from Gothic metal, both of which would probably warrant a moreor less short block anyway. Circeus 01:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User has sent me a mail requesting unblock with at best misleading argument. It'll be available to whoever is interested. I am not planning to make a detailed explanation of the multiple issues with this user's editing, as the last thing we want is a harder to spot Leyasu. more Circeus 02:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Since I wasn't sure, I requested a checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Leyasu. VandalismCorrecter's arguments were slightly more convincing to me than they were to Circeus, but the IPs that Leyasu and VandalismCorrecter are using (see WP:AE) are very close and look like they must be from the same range. I've asked Circeus to unblock VandalismCorrecter after the checkuser request comes back, unless the result is Confirmed or Highly Likely. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it kind of looks like a violation of USERNAME with the name... or is it just me -- Tawker 08:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It does to me too. At best, if the two usernames belong to different users, VandalismCorrecter should consider changing his username. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Update: Checkuser confirmed VandalismCorrecter to be a sock. Circeus 12:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YaR GnitS

Policing this sock farm is getting increasingly tedious, mainly because of the sheer number of socks and the puppeteer interfering with the process.

Any suggestions?--Rosicrucian 01:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And this is what I'm talking about. Twelve socks and counting, and this one's not even banned yet.--Rosicrucian 04:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, now it is. Next letter in the alphabet, I guess.--Rosicrucian 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Now the lovable scamp has left me the following via one of the usual AOL proxy IPs--Rosicrucian 05:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not bashful about listing my puppets, I'm dead serious User: AOL yada has no official affiliation to User: YaR GnitS. I'd never even heard of Aol yada until I saw it listed here. If it really follows my posts, then I guess it's just a fan. But if I was hiding puppets, why would I post them myself?
Listen, this deeply offends me, and if User: AOL yada isn't removed from the list by Tuesday 08/15 12:00am GMT, YaR GnitS & co. will double its efforts daily!
Also, FYI your post on the talk page is incorrect, all my info is pre-set, so I just add a suffix, and I'm good to go. For clicking "create a account" to submitting my ICP post, on an edit it takes less than 2min., often less than 1. On a create-a-page, it takes less than 3min. I'm pretty sure the greater effort is on the admin's end. ~YaR GnitS
And he's now trying to remove the sock tag from User:AOL yada via anonymous IP, and spamming this message on that page.--Rosicrucian 15:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, why did you tag my account as a sockpuppet? Just becuase someone decided that creating a sockpuppet tag with an autoblock feature was 'disruptive' doesn't mean that I'm a sockpuppet of anyone, and I wasn't removing sockpuppet tags, I was replacing them with the now deleted template. I got tired of getting hit with collateral damage from YaR GnitS so I created a template, someone didn't like the template, so block, and delete, nothing about that is sockish. If you care to do a checkuser you'll see I wasn't even logged in from an AOL proxy range, rather from a 172, which is not the least bit anonymous. So, if you wouldn't mind....--172.148.239.154 21:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If someone would like to take a look at the template in question, is just a sockpuppet tag, with an autoblock feature and notice to watch for collateral. The same feautre was worked into Template:Sockpuppet a few hours later. Just after the discussion here, not to mention here.--172.148.239.154 22:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I have contacted the original banning admin to see if he can lend some insight. However, since you made a broad sweep of switching the sock tags on the socks of YaR GnitS, and since it is a violation of WP:DENY, I just thought it was more likely you were a sock, considering his own edits.--Rosicrucian 02:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] {{User Modernbushido}} and Cyde

It's this one again. For the THIRD TIME, this template has been deleted without a TfD, and without my notice by Cyde (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). Thi is very disconcerting to me, especially since it was deleted for "Cross-namespace redirect, see WP:ASR", which makes no sense, since its a template (not a redirect) and not a self-reference. Normally at this point I would contact Cyde, but I have found that Cyde tends to attack, flame, and ban people who speak against him for no reason, violating basically everything in WP:CIVIL at once.

I undertstand that the German Userbox Solution moves the templates to User Space, but also, compromise and consensus must be followed. according to WP:GUS, "Compromise is the source of community."

Someone should speak to Cyde about his problem with civility and the way he treats other users. He seems to have a lack of Wikilove, and that should be addressed. Perhaps he does not understand the full impact of community consensus, especially when it applies to controversial subjects. Admins should not be above the law, they should be the epitome of it.

~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 14:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had similar problems, so I can endorse this (minus the incivility). Cyde has spent alot of time deleting templates without discussion, without a TfD, and with no better reasons that unclosed polls such as GUS. When questioned, Cyde barely says two words. Since then, a template I use for a WikiProject has been moved to another namespace. This leaves me with the notion that it was done so an admin can get his/her way, and be done with it. SynergeticMaggot 14:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just userfy it and be done with it per WP:GUS. I'm rather annoyed that you kept on recreating it behind my back hoping I wouldn't notice, by the way. --Cyde Weys 15:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Its been userfied, if you bothered to read my comment. And this is exactly what I mean. If you bothered to read GUS, there is more of a consensus to leave WikiProject user boxes in the template namespace. Mind if I ask under what criteria you are using to delete these? SynergeticMaggot 15:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
What would be wrong with putting WikiProject userboxes as subpages of the WikiProject? That makes it them who own it. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I was just deleting the newly created userboxes, which go against the spirit of WP:GUS (what's the point of userfication if dozens more templates are created each day?) WikiProject-related userboxes should be housed under the projectspace to which they refer, i.e. "Wikipedia:WikiProject BlahBlah/Userbox", rather than just being out there stranded in template-space. --Cyde Weys 15:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't like templates very often. I don't like userboxes at all. I don't like tags, except procedural ones. I don't even like categories all that much. All of that, and yet I've been surprised and unhappy to see the way some people have been speedy deleting these things without using existing structures. Use the process, Luke. Use the process. When we don't use the policy, we establish a two tier site, where admins do what they like, and regular users are at their mercy. That's not our structure, it has not been our structure, and it should not become our structure, lest we empower all the administrator-paranoiacs. Geogre 15:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It's easy to say, very hard to do in practice. You want me to file 40 new TFDs everyday?! It doesn't make sense that anyone can create this stuff en masse, but then we have to go through the whole rigamarole of process just to get rid of them when they shouldn't have been created in templatespace in the first place. --Cyde Weys 15:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I understand, and I'm no more enchanted with these things than you are, but, pending an injunction or something clear about what they can and cannot be, we really don't have much choice in the matter. Whenever I've gone to a longtime problem user's page, it has been lit up like a pachinko board with boxes, and having more than one "joke" box stops being funny and crosses into juvenalia, but we don't have the bones yet for doing anything about it. Geogre 19:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Where is the process? A large portion deleted by Cyde did not fall under the speedy criteria. Cyde says it goes against the spirit of GUS. I dont seem to see this under CSD either. This appears more like an admin's opinion rather than policy.
Cyde: Maybe if you took your time and didnt rush into things, they would end up so complicated? Whats done is done I suppose? I'm asking for them to be undeleted as well. If you feel so strongly that so many templates need to be deleted, maybe you should request for a speedy be added to CSD, or some other more valid reason to one of the policies. Instead of what appears to be abuse of adminship. SynergeticMaggot 15:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Abuse of adminship? Sigh. If you want these things preserved, just userfy them. It's that simple. That's really all there is to it. That's what WP:GUS is about. --Cyde Weys 15:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
What else should I call it? You have gone against a poll, which is not closed, and has current consensus to remain in template namespace. For reference: Wikipedia:Userboxes/Userbox location straw poll#Wikipedia-related. I'll ask again, under what criteria have you deleted these? This time, I'd appreciate an answer. SynergeticMaggot 15:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The difference between the letter and the spirit of WP:GUS is probably worth remembering, as is WP:BITE, since I would suggest that this also applies to editors venturing into a new area. Obviously, informing people of what's happening via leaving them a message in their talk page would prevent so much hassle - with a polite enough notice, people would probably appologise and move it themselves. And once people have been warned once about this, there is better ground to stand on. LinaMishima 16:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Additional - surely Cydebot could be made to automate the entire process of notifying authors, changing templates on userpages and moving the userbox? Since then their pages will be without red text, most people would be non-the-wiser, and the author would understand why. That way Cyde can continue to attempt to impliment the WP:GUS, even if it's not policy? LinaMishima 17:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
So wait, you're suggesting that Cyde's bot can continue to ignore process now? I'm still waiting for another admin to tell me that what Cyde is doing it correct. That admins can ignore consensus and do what they please. SynergeticMaggot 17:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
No, of course not. I am, however, suggesting a compromise. I'm quite sure that although the lack of due process would still irritate, a fair ammount of upset would be reduced if the authors were kept informed and no-one's userpage was broken. LinaMishima 19:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I should note that I am suggesting a compromise until such a time as this matter is properly settled, rather than a compromise as the solution. That is not to say that the compromise cannot be a solution, but such a think is doubtful. LinaMishima 19:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Cyde:I'm rather annoyed that you kept on recreating it behind my back hoping I wouldn't notice, by the way.
Ok, what? I recreated it because I thought that it had been deleted by mistake, since I had received no notice, and there was big red link on my page; I commented as such. I didn't go behind your back. It had nothing to do with you. And yes, I think that "abuse of adminship" is a correct term. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 19:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me explain. I had requested via IRC that the template be restored. I checked the category linked from DRV, for admins who will undeleted, so long as it is in good faith. So I contacted AmiDaniel. And in turn, AmiDaniel undeleted. I have never previously discussed the matter with any other admin, so I hope this clears up at least that much. SynergeticMaggot 20:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is all very, very simple, and I'm really sick of everyone on both sides bickering over userboxes to no end. 1) WP:GUS does not justify the deletion of anything except resulting redirects. 2) The deletion of userboxes in templatespace that are not divisive and inflammatory is not justified without a TfD. 3) Nonetheless, WikiProject affiliation userboxes make a hell of a lot more sense in project space than in templatespace. So the solution is very simple: Stop creating the userboxes in templatespace, and, Cyde, when you come across such a userbox in template space, use the nifty little move tab to put it in project space and then delete the resulting redirect. Then we can stop having these annoying and pointless discussions about absofuckinglutely nothing and get on with work that actually benefits the encyclopedia. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yay. --mboverload@ 22:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you don't understand the situation. the problem is not with WP:GUS. The problem is with an adminstrator who abused his powers in order to throw all procedure out the window...again. You said it yourself: WP:GUS does not justify the deletion of anything except resulting redirects. The deletion of userboxes in templatespace that are not divisive and inflammatory is not justified without a TfD. The userbox was simply deleted, not substed or userfied. It was just GONE, leaving a red link. I had to recreate it myself on user space. Now do you see the problem? ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 01:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The process works. If someone wants it userfied, it is. If no one wants it userfied, it stays deleted. There's no point in userfying hundreds of templates that no one cares about and that no one is going to use. --Cyde Weys 03:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
How are you supposed to know who wants the box userfied without a TfD? Are you psychic? You are NOT above the rules. You ignored procedure. Plus, the box was in use by several people, including myself. Or do you not consider me a person? If not, say so now. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 20:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a solution that LA came up with to userfy the boxes Userfy Userboxes You can place boxes there to be userfied. May help for future box issues. Æon Insane Ward 15:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User 67.114.45.132

I first encountered 67.114.45.132 on the femininity page, where he/she continually reinserted inappropriate material that was rejected by multiple editors. The user then went on throw around inappropriate insults on the talk page. When I checked the user page, I found that it is full of complaints from other editors. Trnj2000 18:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

He obviously doesn't care much about whether his edits are helpful so I will block him indef. Ashibaka tock 21:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't do that, it's an anon IP. Unless it's a proxy, limit the block. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to rotate. If it does, the next user can just use {{unblock}}. Ashibaka tock 03:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faggotstein imposter of Fagstein

This guy is either an impostor or a sockpuppet. Fagstein seems to be in good faith and would have to be monumentally stupid to pick this as a username for a sockpuppet, so I'm gonna go with impostor. Karwynn (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything in their edits that makes you think it is meant to be an impostor and not a n innocenet user name? It might in any case be blockable for being confusing. JoshuaZ 21:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, currently its indefblocked by me...either its an impostor, or an inappropriate username. Syrthiss 21:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
"Faggotstein" is not an acceptable username. --Cyde Weys 22:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I've always been uncomfortable with "Fagstein", as well, though he seems to be a good user. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW - Faggotstein posted to their talk page with "F@CK YOU UNBLOCK ME NOW!" (or something similar, my eyes went a little misty when I read the F@CK part). Since that wasn't one of the options in the {{usernameblock}} I ignored him. Syrthiss 18:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's sad to see people calling each other "Fatck." When will they realize that being fatck is simply how some people are? Geogre 19:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC) (tongue in cheek)

[edit] User:BhaiSaab

I blocked this user for violating the 3RR on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. He has complained about my block on the grounds that he has not tecnically broken the rule. However, I feel that his edits were deliberatly intending to prolong an edit war, and calculated to disrupt the article whilst falling just short of the rules technical paramters. Have I done the correct thing? If so/not, could someone please assist at User talk:BhaiSaab Robdurbar 22:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I support this block. This guy has been blocked before for 3RR offences, and it seems that his intent is only to push POVs on articles. --Nearly Headless Nick 15:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Webville

Sorry, I'm not certain if this is the correct procedure for this kind of thing, but here goes. User:Webville appears to be here solely to add links to isurvived.org, and add material to articles reflecting the site's viewpoint. This site, from what I can tell, represents a minority viewpoint, a claim made by User:130.39.232.221, who provided this link. Some of his contributions seem to confirm this, such as this edit to Hiram Bingham III, which claims he is a "bigot and racist of the first order" based on one letter he wrote, and goes on to call his son Hiram Bingham IV - a hero of the Holocaust, who, according to his Wikipedia article, helped 2500 Jews escape the Nazis - "a hater of Jews and a Holocaust denier." He has persistently made POV edits to Hiram Bingham IV (such as this), which made both the POV statement that he was "no hero," which is not the prevailing viewpoint, and the statement that he "was not a rescuer of Jews by and stretch," which contradicted material already in the article, without reference. On that article's talk page, he paid little attention to my explanation of the problem with his edits and made some borderline personal attacks. He also removed Bingham from List of people who assisted Jews during the Holocaust without explanation. He has also been warned by User:Dahn for making vanadalous deletions at History of the Jews in Romania, and appears to be a single-purpose account with the sole purpose of advancing the viewpoint of isurvived.org. I am not sure what the procedure is in such incidents, and I admit I am not personally familiar with this site - it could be mainstream and legitimate, but many indications point otherwise - but I think at the very least his contributions need to be closely watched and scrutinized. -Elmer Clark 23:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That many links is blatant linkspam (search I see 36 links right now). User should be warned with spam1,...,spam4 templates, and blocked if spamming persists, if not for the POV crap. Links should be reverted. I'll see if I can do it tomorrow if they're still there, I have to go offline soon and am not up for it for now. Phr (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Close AfD please

Can one of the Admins please close this: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America

It has been 5 days.Travb (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As usual, there is currently a backlog on AfD, with some articles from August 5th waiting to be closed. Someone may close that AfD anyway, but normally it would be one of those that a lot of admins would quietly pass by on the other side of the street rather than close. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shi'a View of Ali AfD

AtShi'a view of Ali's AfD, Uncle G has repeatedly accused me of attempting a botched merger and to do it properly. Despite my attempts to correct this false assumption(and I explained why I want to delete rather than merge twice on the page), he has now closed the AfD, saying there was "no consensus" However, the only other vote before he closed it was to delete!

I'd like an admin to take a look at this please, and, if I have a point, to reopen the AfD. I don't want to be one of those crazy editors who sees anyone who disagrees with them as vindictive Nazis out to destroy them, but equally I really feel Uncle G has got the wrong end of the stick here, and won't let go. Thanks. Dev920 02:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the point Uncle G was trying to make was that you cannot delete an article if you have merged any content from it. It must remain as a redirect to the article the content was merged to in order to preserve attribution, even if it was a POV fork (I have no idea). Pointing you to the policy was his way of saying this, in my opinion. -- Kjkolb 07:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to be pedantic, it is possible to take information from a deleted article and put it into another one. GFDL doesn't protect facts or sources. So if someone takes (for instance) a single paragraph, goes and looks up the source, and types it into a new article in their own words we can delete the source article. - brenneman {L} 07:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to be correct ;-), nothing was said about putting things in your own words and I said "merge" not using information (as opposed to content) that is in one article in another article. In that case it would not be a merge, anyway. It would be using the article as an example or template to write another article or something else besides a merge. I do not know about legal requirements, but it does seem dishonest (claiming you (generic you) wrote it) and like stealing (denying recognition to the authors) not to give credit to the authors of the original content. They found all of the sources, identified the relevant information and presented it in an intelligible and possibly persuasive manner, depending on the type of content. All you are doing is reverse engineering it. It would be even worse if you are rewriting their words and crediting their sources instead of them. I had a tenured English professor who would insist on it being disclosed if even you just read/watched a work and did not use it as a reference. This would be a much greater usage of a work, so I think it should be noted. -- Kjkolb 10:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I support you both ethically and legally there, but that I would have said "theft." I was responding to the word "any" in "if you have merged any content from it" as much as anything. I shall retreat, bloddied but unbowed. ^_^
    brenneman {L} 15:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Have taken on board above and posted accordingly at AfD. Dev920 12:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dovetail.tv

A User:Dovetail recently registered and made some edits to Tyler MacNiven and Kintaro Walks Japan, amongst other articles, adding external links to dovetail.tv, a new HD video site. I removed them and put a {{spam}} tag at his talk page, and much to my suprise he was willing to talk about it. Now, under normal circumstances I'd be more than happy to explain the policy, especially after noticing that dovetail.tv gets only 272 Google hits. But gosh darn it, I happened to notice here that Dovetail.tv is based in San Francisco, where Tyler MacNiven is from, and that User:Dovetail signed his comment "Jason", which is the first name of the contact at that page. I would not be the least bit surprised if Tyler and Jason were the best of friends, and Tyler, who I have reason to believe is aware of his article here, maybe even asked Jason to post the links here. It seems like this sort of thing always happens to me, and yet again I end up coming here asking for someone with more experience and comfort with this sort of thing to help me make sure everything is done correctly. --Maxamegalon2000 03:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is not a link directory. He should submit them to dmoz.org. Ashibaka tock 03:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Just talk about it politely with him, ask him to read WP:EL for extlink policy, and yes, dmoz.org is a good suggestion. Phr (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Shangwen Fang

Fanoffang (talk • contribs), whom I suspect to be Shangwen Fang himself (based on edit pattern and content -- compare with Shangwen Fang's own edits on Chinese Wikipedia), has been editing to introduce pro-Fang POV -- at least, in my view -- and I suspect Milx (talk • contribs) to be a sockpuppet intended to only attack Bobbybuilder (talk • contribs) on Talk:Shangwen Fang, and so i reverted Fanoffang's most recent edits to the article as well as removed Mlix's and Fangoffang's most recent comments on the talk page. However, I would like some extra pairs of eyes to examine the situation to see if I am already too embroiled into the situation to be neutral, and if so, to consider what is neutral and how the article might be able to be rendered neutral. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

WP:ANI Needs some attention. ViridaeTalk 08:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugh I mean WP:AIV... ViridaeTalk 08:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attacks on User:Mackensen

User:Mackensen Is A Lamer has vandalised User:Mackensen's talk page, and his name is inapropriate. This is obviously a account only for vandalism. Despite what it says on his user page, the user has not been blocked. Sergeant Snopake 09:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked by Freakofnurture. --Doc 09:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Are we sure he didn't inherit Curpsbot? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Shhhh, you know that's a state secret. --Cyde Weys 13:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Quick work! Thanks, folks. Mackensen (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, using {{PUB}} would propose it for a username block automatically Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 12:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User: Elliot.kw

Despite previous warnings User:Elliot.kw keeps moving speedy deletion tags from Thomas & Friends Big Live tour 2002. Please ban.

We do nopt ban people for this. Actually, it isn't quite speediable anyway, use WP:AFD if you want it deleted. And please stop putting warnign tags on articles and article talk pages. --Doc 09:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't it speedible? I looked at the history and the actions of other users in his article log and I also asked a long-term member here before I warned the person.

Sorry about the warning signs on the articles but I am new here and getting to know the ropes!

~~Pepsimanchester

[edit] Up&Down - sockpuppet?

Up&Down (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) seems to be on a suspicious editing spree as of late. He replaced the contents of User talk:RyanGerbil10 with the contents of User:RyanGerbil10 with an added sockpuppet template [8]. He also removed User:JamesTeterenko from the list of Active users of WP:HOCKEY [9], on the ridicuolous claim that JT "does not contribute to Hockey pages in an ethical manner" (which, even if it were true, is not a reason to take someone off WP:HOCKEY's user list).

Additionally, this user also added this note on the WP:HOCKEY article claiming that User:JohnnyCanuck was wrongly blocked as a sock puppet. JohnnyCanuck's block log reveals JamesTeterenko had previously blocked him, and reverting RyanGerbil10's talk page revealed that JohnnyCanuck had requested RyanGerbil10 to unprotect his userpage, a request RyanGerbil denied. Additionally, RyanGerbil blocked the IP from which Johnny Canuck posted the request after JC vandalized the user page in response to the rejection. Given this evidence, I presume that Up&Down is nothing more than a sockpuppet of JohnnyCanuck and/or his suspected puppetmaster, VaughanWatch. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 09:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sussex Downs College

Is it possible that we can please have the sussex downs college page protected, or at the least semi protected as the ammount of criticism that has been posted by vindictive staff members is not representative of the positive reputation of the college. As a former student and now staff member I and the majority of my collegues feel that the vandalism is damaging both to the reputation of the college and the mentality of present students. The vandalism has been posted on several occasions by whom we believe to be one staff member under different alias's so this will prove to be an ongoing problem if not solved.

This is what we would like the page to read “Sussex Downs College is a large college in the South East of England. It has campuses in Eastbourne, Lewes and Newhaven. It was formed from the merger of three smaller colleges in the region - Lewes Sixth Form College, Eastbourne Vocational College and Park Sixth Form College. Although there was primarily some speculation over a successful merger Sussex Downs College has since proved itself of exceptional standard, achieving CoVE status (Certificate of Vocational Excellence) an award that very few other colleges have managed to attain. Offering 16-19, Adult, and International or Higher Education courses the range attracts people from all walks of life. Although functioning as one college the ethos of the individual campuses remains the same giving the students an individual choice as to how they learn, yet the security of a vastly equipped support network. Set in the heart of the South Downs, Sussex Downs College provides an inspiring and relaxed environment in which to study”

If you could protect this page we would very much appreciate it, and if there are any other concerns over the nature of our enquirey please dont hesitate to email me at sara.humphrey@sussexdowns.ac.uk

Hello, Sara. Protection of an article is a last resort and articles are protected for vandalism rather than criticism, although inserting unsourced criticism over and over could be vandalism. The only edits I found that had anything negative to say were this and this. The article was started in December 2005 and has only had two edits that inserted criticism that was not to the point where it would be called vandalism, so the article does not meet the standards we have for protection. I suggest removing negative comments if they are unsourced. Of course, if negative information is accurate, sourced and stated in a neutral manner, it should stay. It is expected that there will be some negative information about any institution. -- Kjkolb 10:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more socks of user:EnthusiastFRANCE

See Petit Tonnerre (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) and Running Potatoe (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) (already blocked) -Aknorals 10:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Mainly this edit -Aknorals 11:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

To say nothing of Mackensen Is A Lamer (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)! It's good to know you're wanted, at any rate...Mackensen (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

haha, yeah, to think I never went off on anybody's radar before this dude showed up! -Aknorals 11:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Tagged and bagged. Mackensen (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Man In Black being uncivil

Hello, A Man In Black (talk • contribs) is being uncivil towards me. Modifying my comments after i updated my opinion and added my "vote" on a page and tidied it.

He first reverted my edits twice, saying i was being sneaky (maybe i would be if tehre ahd been conversation branching off but there was not, if so i would of left the original comment there as well) [10] [11]
He then proceeded to remove warnings from his talk page (3RR for his 3RR vio, WR0/1, 3RR and attack) calling my 3RR warning trolling [12] he then proceeded to wipe more warnings [13] and [14]
He then started changing the subject firstly "MatthewFenton can't be bothered to link what he's talking about or open a new header" [15] which is blatently uncivil.

I can only assume his hostility towards me is because i reported him for a 3RR vio this morning, but as ana dmin he should WP:AGF and act civil towards me. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does every dispute you are involved in have to esculate like this? This is what people are complaining about in your RfC. The JPStalk to me 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I wish they did not have to, and i my self have honestly tried to stay out of disputes but said users are not helping by messing up pages when the variable is being used in hundreds of pages.
I asked them all to leave it till dispute was over however they all ignore. I can only think there nitpicking, the fact remains that: its useful, does no harm and serves a purpose. Also no one makes users use it. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your intentions, and I fully understand your logic in wanting to make the changes. But the problem is that you are failing to acknowledge the logic of those opposing you. You are automatically assuming that those who disagree with you are vandalising, or disrupting Wikipedia. This is not good, particularly when they have valid concerns. You are the one who changed the template without discussion, so it's unfair to play that card! You need to be at least acknowledging the validity of those opposing you are saying, and not automatically dismissing them. The JPStalk to me 12:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I do ackknowledge them, but it needs to be there until at least the discussion is over as it is being used in litteraly HUNDREDS of articles. I've even volunteerd to remove all instances my self after the discussion is over if its decided they should be gone. Also about teh discussion part.. i was unaware i had to ask permission, but if you notice Ed [the one who warned me i had to ask and said my change was major] went and made a real major change 5 minutes later (bolding text, recoding and aligning to left -- which also happend to break the ifbx) he did not ackknowledge this as major at all and it took him time to fix it, the fact that he thinks he does not him self have to ask is bias. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a particular element of this I find quite bizzare. Reading the talkpage for the template, AMIB tells you in quite explicit terms that he does not support your changes and wishes you to stop, other editors share his point of view. You tell those editors that you take this as SUPPORT for your changes! I will assume good faith and assume you have some form of learning difficulty that affects your reading comprehension - the only other explanations involve bad faith. --Charlesknight 12:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No actually there was an oppose section which ed wiped (would it not of been better to put his comments in there - in the first place). Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Please point me to the edit where AMIB says "I support your change" or words to that effect - if he said it, it must be in the edit history. So all I require in response is a link. --Charlesknight 13:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
He never said he supported or opposed, nor did i say i said he supported or i say that AMIB supported it on the talk. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok I'm moving from finding your behaviour "bizarre" to downright disturbing. AMIB Quite clearly says he opposes your changes, you QUITE CLEARLY state that you take this as support ". This now goes beyond wiki-lawyering (which you have been accused of in the past), you seem intend on creating a false impression of a situation when anyone reading the talk page for the template can see what you actually said. I am baffled why you try such a gambit. I am going to be blunt, I no longer assume good faith and I consider you a danger to Wikipedia. --Charlesknight 13:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
What? Where have i said i took his comments as support? If you read the articleyou may notice i didnt even count him AT ALL! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
What on earth is this then?

Voting is useless and divisive, and your vote count seems to discount me, Combination, and ed g2s. Get support for the colors, then add them to the template. Revert with vandalism-reversion tools and I will block you, and recommend that your AWB/VP/whatever access be stripped. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

YOU ARE ALL IN THE SUPPORT SECTION*, Ed has made comments (note he also removed the oppose sect.) and there seems to be support, and for making threats saying i cannot revert i intend to report that. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 07:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

How is "Ugh. Please don't implement series-by-series coloring" ambiguous? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

--Charlesknight 13:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I made them aware they where in the support section (patetntly obvious) also, thank you for adding more proof of his uncivility (threats etc) Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
How is "please don't" either uncivil or threatening? The "ambiguous" part is because you said there were 4 support / 0 oppose when it was clear there wasn't universal support for the idea. --Interiot 13:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Notice the threats? Thats uncivil. He is giving orders saying i cant revert, now i'm not conscripted so i dont have to obey his orders. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 14:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is wikilawyering of the worst sort - how would you interperate AMIB comments to be SUPPORT no matter what heading they were under? I give up at this point and will leave this to the rest of you. --Charlesknight 13:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you cant be botherd to read the talk dont bother, i made them AWARE i did not INTERPRET! AWARE i never even counted them as suppoters I made them AWARE! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Charles, I'm pretty sure that Matthew wasn't saying that he thought MIB and co. supported his idea -- he seems to have been complaining that someone else deleted his "Oppose" heading[16] and that the debate was getting peanut butter in his chocolate, or putting opposition in his support section, or something. TheronJ 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way to avoid this whole mess would have been to discuss before making a major change to a widely used template. Since that didn't happen, the next best option would have been to discuss the matter rationally as soon as someone opposed the change. Arguing that someone's obviously opposing opinion was actually in support because of some arbitrary section break is absurd. I've seen matters involving Matthew pop up around the Wiki over the past few weeks and they all seem to be minor issues becoming major ones. In my opinion, it usually stems from Matthew's insistence that he is right and others are not only wrong, but their actions will harm Wikipedia. Yeah, this is all a bit blunt, but this behavior needs to cease. Aren't I Obscure? 13:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I still fail to see how you can call this major. a) its optional b) no one forces you to use it c) it alters the design in no way unless !called!.
Furthermore how is adding {{Colour|#<Default>}} compared to Eddys change here, which no one seemed to care about? If you ahve to ask permision to edit pages why was it not protected? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
When this matter spilled onto ANI, the focus shifted from the template itself to how you reacted to opposition. With the huge number of editors we have, disagreements over changes (major or minor) are inevitable. It's essential that editors are able to handle opposition in a rational and calm manner. This includes taking to steps to prevent conflicts from escalating. Sometimes it even means backing down and letting a matter drop. However, instead of picking your battles wisely, you seem to want to fight every battle to the bitter end. Just in this section, you've managed to argue with every editor who's posted an opinion. Is it really the case that you're right and everyone else is wrong? My advice is back away from the template for a while and edit your favorite articles. Also, it wouldn't hurt to reread your RfC with the understanding that the majority of these editors are raising valid points. Aren't I Obscure? 14:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A very reasonable way of implementing the colour coding was proposed by Ed near the start of the discussion. It is a /much/ better solution than manually handcranking the colours and not considering accessibility at all. When things are specified via a style sheet users have the freedom to turn off "daft colouring" and actually see the content (consider colour blindness). It's a shame Matthew did not seriously take this on board. His later behaivour and attempt to get mob rule to decide the issue (as in it's far to early to vote - discuss first) is bizarre.

Personally I don't think we should ever mess with article text colours. Thanks/wangi 14:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobodys been messing with text colours.. so what are you talking about? :\ Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 14:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Eh, you are... See this edit - "Colour" for the background colour, and "TColour" for the text colour in the headings. Thanks/wangi 14:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It changes !NOTHING! unless called!! Does nobody understand? The bland gray is !STILL THERE! and only changed if variables are CALLED Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 14:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Mathew, I think you're still failing to see the concerns of other editors. You added the "Colour" and "TColour" params to the template. Why did you add them if not to use them? Thanks/wangi 14:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying dont use them, i'm saying the objectionists dont need to use them [if they dont want to]. I've jus had an idea tho.. would it be possible to have some css so those who dont wish to see colours see teh default and all they have to do is paste css to m-b.js? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 14:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't think about us editors, think about the readers. Read Ed's suggestion for the answer to your "idea" - as in you use CSS classes, not explicit colours. Thanks/wangi 14:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Edwards suggestion is limited, however a template has been created for colours however it is not worth implementing when it will be reverted. Thus a waste of time. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 14:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RyanGerbil10 talk page

Recently, socks of VaughanWatch have repeatedly blanked my talk page and/or replaced it sock puppet warnings, due to the fact that I have block two VaughanWatch IP addresses and a user account, User:Up&Down, who all seem to be VaughanWatch. I don't want to protect my talk page, (my userpage is already protected), but I'm pretty sure my talk page is going to suffer some fairly severe vandalism today, and I will be unable to fix it from 14:00 UTC August 15 until 00:00 UTC August 16 because I will be at work. Could a few administrators keep it relatively clean for me? I think once Vaughan discovered I blocked his latest account, he'll hit me pretty hard. Thanks, RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 13:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What about s-protect? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 13:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I do a lot of RC patrol, sometimes anons come and point out my mistakes (I do make them, from time to time). Anyway, I'm home now. Thank you to everyone who helped keep my page clean. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 23:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Aknorals blasphemous summary edits

Hello, I noticed the User:Aknorals did unacceptable blasphemous summary edits here, in extenso "OMFG, the bible says my actions are ill-ee-gal! ONOS!!!". i'd like to remember "OMFG" is the acronym for "Oh My Fucking God", and that blasphemous insults are not tolerated on Wikipedia as well as flaming. This vandal deserves AT LEAST a warning. Irrelevant Edit 14:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Who was being insulted? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your note. You've been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet along with your proxies. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I think a quick look will reveal that this edit by User:Aknorals was in response to a ridiculous allegation by another user, who invoked the Bible in his support. Aknorals could possibly have been more restrained, but under the circumstances it was mild; this is certainly not worth taking any action over. DJ Clayworth 14:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
That and "blashemy" isn't a prohibited action on Wikipedia.

This is just our good friend EnthusiastFRANCE (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) making his daily appearance. Disregard. Mackensen (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war at Naruto Uzumaki

There's a revert war going on at Naruto Uzumaki between Pentasyllabic, TTN, and Kingdom hearts III. They're reverting each other over and over, about every 5 to 10 minutes, and have been for the last few hours. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 15:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

24 hour blocks for each. I'm looking to see if Narutomaniac (talk • contribs) should also get one. Kirill Lokshin 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability issues in a Star Trek article

Discussion moved to Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia --Doc 16:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IP indefblock

I just noticed that 216.190.11.36 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) picked up an indefblock as a sockpuppet.

Can someone who knows the ways of IPs better than I do take a look and make sure an indefblock is in order? The only time I'd heard of it before is for open proxies and all-vandal accounts with mass vandalism and no positive edits. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a dial-up ISP. Indef probably not a good idea. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
In which case, could someone with The Button shorten the block? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I've shortened it to a week. If it recurs as a vandal after that, then it's probably not a rolling IP and can be blocked for much longer (say 6 mo.). Geogre 19:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eh...?

Wikipedia has a problem
Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties.
Try waiting a few minutes and reloading.
(Can't contact the database server: Unknown error (10.0.0.2))
Candidates for the Election for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation
are being accepted until 23:59 UTC Monday, August 28, 2006.
  • Eh?? Anyone know what's causing this?--152.163.100.65 17:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's you. No...just kidding. It was me. (Actually, someone probably does know, but server load fluctuates with server health. A certain amount of this is to be expected, and donations are always gratefully accepted. It has been occurring very little recently, and some of us old timers were probably getting nostalgic.) Geogre 19:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] yeeeeesh

Huge Backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion--64.12.116.65 20:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexico123

Mexico123 has just uploaded his sixth image without licence info, having been warned not to do so. Could someone have a pursuasive word with him, asking him to stop. Now. --David Mestel(Talk) 21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if he speaks English at all. In any case he has not responded to a single warning so I'll block him long enough to wake him up to the fact that he is not being helpful. Ashibaka tock 21:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonaparte again

I have permablocked Georgianis (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser) as a sockpuppet of Bonaparte (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser). The block is based on this edit of him.

There also a few strange facts about the User:Georgianis:

  • His signature is a copy of the signature of Romanian User:Ronline with substitution of the Romanian flag with Georgian flag
  • His articles Anti-Georgian discrimination is very similar to Bonaparte's Anti-Romanian discrimination
  • His style of discussion is very similar
  • Before registering, he edited for a few hours as an IP user 140.203.12.4 and 193.136.242.251 . One IP is an open proxy from Moscow and the other is an open proxy from Portugal, using open proxies is a trademark of Bonaparte

I had an edit conflict with User:Georgianis. so please review my block abakharev 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Good catch Alex! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually catch is Khoikhoi's. The block is mine abakharev 22:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well kudos to you both in this case :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ex-Homey

See also:

Ex-Homey (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) has been repeatedly emailing me about allowing him to edit wiki-wide rather than being restricted to his arbitration cases, which was the condition I imposed when I unblocked him. I would not agree to this; if for no other reason than that he has been such a pest. Any thoughts about relieving the restriction I imposed on him? Fred Bauder 23:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongly opposed to allowing him to edit any place but arbitration pages. I blocked his original account for abusive sockpuppets because of his involvment in the WordBomb case. Additionally, Ex-Homey mistated the reason you unblocked him in his statement on RFAr that he has against me. I'll post more later. I sent an email to the Arbcom list about this before you posted here. FloNight talk 23:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel I should wade into this mess since I missed most of the earlier discussion. I am strongly opposed to considering Homey to be under an indefinite community ban. He has unquestionably gone way beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour in recetn weeks, but this does not negate the fact that he has made several tens of thousands of valuable edits and several years of good behaviour. In the Canadian areas Wikipedia, where I am most familiar with his work, he was for a long time considered a pilar of the community. - SimonP 00:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Not an admin...but...As the goal here is to create an encylopedia, as long as that is what a user is doing I don't see a problem with it. I am sure you guys know better than I since I haven't followed this all that closely, so if you feel that if he is unblocked he wouldn't be helping to create an encylopedia, disregard this uniformed comment. Arkon 01:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This is also my view. Looking through the edit histories of his alternate accounts they, for the most part, have done little disruptive and almost all the contributions have been totally legitimate. If another account like User:Fluffy the Cotton Fish appears and starts making a stream of productive edits, I see no reason to not let Homey quietly work under the new name. - SimonP 01:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I am strongly opposed to this as there is strong consensus for him to be under a community ban for his use of sockpuppets and other behaivor see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive126#Proposed_community_ban. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm also strongly opposed to any relaxation. These are just some of his recent sockpuppets, and here are some others. Some of them have been used abusively e.g. to file a false 3RR report, to pretend to be another banned user in order to cause confusion, or to harass editors he's been in conflict with. Any editor behaving the way he has would have been community-banned by now. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
SimonP. Could you give me some idea what you think the proper sanction is for abusive sockpuppets made to break rules, harass perceived advocacies, and avoid sanctions being handed in several arbitration cases on Homey's main user account?
Seems like your buying into Homey false assertion that his block is punitive when in reality it was preventative. And you therefore look like you are giving him a get out of jail free card. In reality Homey was blocked for refusing to follow dispute resolution by instead fake leaving and coming back and engaging in deceptive and abusive editing with sockpuppets. Knowing his recent history, I think blocking his accounts and forbidding editing outside arbitration pages is prudent. Preventing future disruption in the face of his past disruptive editing should be our purpose. I think limiting him to the arbitration case pages is the only way to make it happen.
Also, I think letting him freely edit now sends the wrong message to him and other disruptive editors. Why should they bother involving themselves with the arbitration case against them. Just leave and come back with different user accounts and do the same or worse. FloNight talk 04:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree as per FloNight and SlimVirgin's concerns. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why this is even being raised, at this point. He's created all sorts of sockpuppets, many for the purpose of harassing, deceiving, or confusing other editors. He's still pretending some of the sockpuppets aren't him, and he's using his active sockpuppet to try to spread as much FUD as he possibly can, including making various false and arguably defamatory claims. When faced with an ArbCom case, a responsible editor would not pretend to leave Wikipedia, then create a dozen sockpuppets and harass other editors with them. This is just disruption. Jayjg (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I oppose giving him free reign. Homey and his various incarnations have been a constant source of sockpuppetry, 3RR violations, ceaseless RFArs and disruption. FeloniousMonk 06:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
These arguments would hold more water if the majority of the new accounts and IP addresses had done anything remotely disruptive. Even if you look at his ArbCom case, which tries to bring up every poor decision over the last several months, I have to agree with CJCurrie that "most of the evidence presented in the case is extremely dubious." Certainly any account that is being disruptive should be blocked, but blocking one that is only making goods edits is purely vindictive. - SimonP 12:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
SimonP, which Arb case are you discussing? FloNight talk 12:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeontherange. - SimonP 16:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with SimonP. This user has made over 35,000 edits in a period of several years. This is not a user you block through a community ban, this is a case that requires the arbcom. Homeontherange has already indicated that he will appeal a community ban, and I support him in that. People claim the many abusive sockpuppets, I would like to see the evidence for the many abusive ones, and equally about the remaining accusations. As the tenstions between groups have gone to high, I think this needs to get away from the discussion boards.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add, that even editors as User:Blu Aardvark are not indef banned by the arbcom, and Homeontherange's 'disruption' is not nearly as bad as Blu Ardvark's. With that comparision, an indef community ban is way out of proportion in this case. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is rather odd that some people's reasoning for not banning Homeontherange is basically "but some of his sockpuppets are making good edits!". The idea that we should only pay attention to the example's of one's best behavior seems kinda odd. I would also argue that Homey's recent behavior has been worse than that of Blu Aardvark, think of what he has done in a matter-of-fact way: Harrassment, vote stacking, malicious sockpuppetry, abuse of process, and continuous incivility, plus all sorts of behavior that cannot simply be explained in terms of wikipedia policy. He has caused a huge amount of disruption by pretending to leave and then acting as if his account has been "hacked into" for the sole purpose of getting out of an arbcom sanction, and then he tried to launch an RFA against two admins because they called him on his recent behavior. I don't really see how all of this is canceled out because some of his sockpuppets have not yet engaged in any violations of policy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen evidence of maliciousness from Homey. Many of the people commenting here have been very involved in disputes with him with regards to the article Allegations of Israeli aparthied. --Ben Houston 18:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)--Ben Houston 18:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You sadly miss the point of the Israeli apartheid articles. They were simply a part of Homey's disruption, not the cause of this situation. He has been editing and behaving disruptively for a long time. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
And what is the relationship of the people defending him?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
More to it than that, but based primarily on SimonP's position I am relieving Ex-homey from the condition I imposed on him. He says he may create another account to edit with quietly. Should it be found using checkuser, please leave it alone unless it is doing something wrong. Fred Bauder 20:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, there were no sockpuppets. I recently had a few alternate accounts, none of which were used to edit the same articles or vote stack in AFDs or do anything opposed to WP:SOCK. Several of the accounts were single purpose accounts that made a handful of edits before being discarded because I didn't want to be drawn into anything on an ongoing basis - I will not be using such accounts in the future. No one has pointed to one edit made by these accounts that is at all worthy of a saction - the closest was SV pointing to a request for a 3RR that was made feigning ignorance of how to do a 3RR. Only one of those accounts was blocked initially and that was because someone wrongly suggested it of being a Wordbomb sockpuppet because it asked for the checkuser results of Mantanmoreland to be posted. Without the erroneous Wordbomb suspicion there would have been no grounds to block.

As for the supposed Sonofzion sockpuppet, I deny having used that account and checksuer did not "confirm" that it was me, rather it produced a "likely" response. There is evidence that Sonofzion was in fact User:Dervish Tsaddik using a Toronto are proxy or zombie computer since other posts signed "Sonofzion" originated from Sweden as did one signed "Daughterofzion".

According to the ruling on the Saladin 1970 appeal:

"The touchstone of an appropriate "ban by the community" is that there is no administrator who after examining the matter is willing to lift or reduce the ban."

This is not the case here as per Fred and SimonP's remarks as well as several other admins who have either spoken publicly or sent me emails. There are no sanctions against me, there have been no findings against me thus there is no reason to harass me with a witch hunt or arbitrary blocking.Ex-Homey 20:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence that User:Sonofzion was a Dervish Tsaddik sockpuppet, "using a Toronto area proxy" or anything else, and none of the posts by the account User:Sonofzion "originated from Sweden". This is another example of the kinds of disruptive falsehoods that Ex-Homey has been spreading. Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg's accusations above are opinion, not established facts -- that should be kept in mind. --Ben Houston 00:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
No, they're established fact, and that should be kept in mind. Sonofzion did not edit "from a Toronto area proxy", nor did it edit from Sweden. And this is the kind of disruptive edit I was talking about. Jayjg (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Then why was the checkuser result "likely" but not "confirmed" Jayjg - you never did answer my question about whether checkusdr showed "same system" or not? And yes, there was a poster from Sweden who signed himself "sonofzion" [17] and then "daughterofzion".
I am changing the other sockpuppet tags to "alternative account" tags, following the example of Mantanmoreland and User:Lastexit (lastexit and manatmoreland edited the same articles and voted in the same AFD's, what normally would be called "abusive sockpuppetry). If you want to change the tags back then also change his tag.Ex-Homey 03:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Fred Bauder unblocked you so you could specifically participate in arbitration only, not edit war over notices on your sockpuppets [18] and harass others at their talk pages. Again, another opportunity from the community squandered. I've reinstated your block. FeloniousMonk 04:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Felonious, please take note of Fred Bauder's comments above: More to it than that, but based primarily on SimonP's position I am relieving Ex-homey from the condition I imposed on him. He says he may create another account to edit with quietly. To the specific point, there seems to be some disagreement as to whether or not these alternate accounts can be described as "Sockpuppets" -- Ex-Homey has acknowledged using some of them on a per-day basis, but only after his previous account was voluntarily blocked. This doesn't correspond with any definition of "sockpuppetry" that I'm familiar with. CJCurrie 04:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
CJC, perhaps you haven't been following this closely. Homeontherange used the accounts for the purposes of deception and harassment. He turned up at articles his "opponents" edited a lot and tried to start trouble on them; he filed at least one false 3RR report against one of them; he tried to interfere with the election to the medcom of another; he pretended to be another banned user in order to cause confusion; etc. It has been the worst disruptive behavior from a former regular user that I've encountered in my time here. Anyone who wanted to create a new account simply in order to contribute to the encyclopedia could have done so without interference, and would not have engaged in any of this behavior. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware that HotR has specifically denied most (if not all) of these charges, and that they remain unproven. In any event, Ex-Homey was not restricted to participation on the arbitration case and from a procedural standpoint he should not have been blocked. CJCurrie 05:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
CJCurrie, please don't post here and on my talk page. I don't want to waste a lot of time discussing Homey. You used to engage in what Homey would call "tag teaming" with him (note: this would be Homey's term for it, not mine), so you're well aware of the trouble he used to cause. Then you stopped editing with him so much, which I can only hope was a recognition on your part that he had gone beyond the pale, so please don't start up again. That Homey denies something is no reason not to believe it. He is disruptive, malevolent, and disingenuous, and is thoroughly enjoying causing this fuss. If he had wanted to edit the encyclopedia quietly, there was nothing stopping him. But it's not what he wants. What he wants is THIS. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I was responding to your comments on my talk page, but as you wish. I do not agree with your assessment of this situation: I've worked with HotR on Wikipedia since 2004, and consider him to be a knowledgeable and productive contributor to the project. I acknowledge that he's made some mistakes in recent times, but I do not believe that anything he's done merits punishment on the level of a community block.
My intepretation of recent events is that Ex-Homey's decision to recategorize the "Sockpuppet" pages may have been unnecessarily provocative under the circumstances, but it was not disruptive (ie. it did not jeopardize the integrity of the project; designating these alt. accounts as "Sockpuppets" was always questionable). In any event, I don't believe that it's sufficient procedural grounds for a block. CJCurrie 05:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how you distinguish between "unnecessarily provocative" and disruptive. Using your def of disruptive, almost nothing would meet that standard. Look, the situation with Homey is sadly very simple. He has lost the confidence of almost all the editors who edit the pages he inhabits. More than "lost the confidence of": he is strongly disliked and not trusted by them. Even you, his staunchest ally, are forced to admit that his behavior is "unnecessarily provocative." Therefore, his editing of those pages is going to cause misery and trouble. That is a fact that nothing will change now, because he went too far, and there is now no way to repair those relationships. I tried very hard to get formal mediation started in order to avoid that total breakdown in relationships, but several others, including Homey initially, scuppered it, and then his sockpuppetry (or whatever you want to call it) started, and things went downhill from there. Therefore, in a case like this, it's not a question of deciding whether someone has lost the confidence of the community. He simply has. It has gone. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I suspect we're not going to reach full agreement on this matter. In any event, I should clarify that I said his recent behaviour "may have been" unnecessarily provocative, by which I mean that it rekindled animosities that might have been better left dormant for the time being. I do not believe this behaviour was "disruptive" to the project. CJCurrie 06:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Btw, Jayjg, what exactly is your rationale for listing "Sonofzion" as a HotR sock, when this was never confirmed? CJCurrie 04:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It was confirmed as well as any sockpuppet can be confirmed by CheckUser. CheckUser is not a magic crystal ball, it's just another piece of evidence. Jayjg (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
SonofZion turned up as soon as Homey was blocked for 3RR and started reverting to his versions of articles, then edited articles Homeontherange had edited a long time ago under different names, and the check user evidence was consistent with it being him. SoZ claimed he knew about these articles because of a post on a discussion board for leftwing students, but he refused to say which one. It was clearly a sock or meat puppet and we don't distinguish. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe my reading skills are less than yours, but I was reading likely, not confirmed. Furthermore, I have seen a Swedisch IP signing off with Sonofzion, so I am not surprised that there is doubt. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Kim, please, please start reading posts before responding to them. I wrote "consistent with." The check user evidence was only a part of it, and there is no reasonable doubt. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Slimvirgin, please stop bashing people. I have read your post, and for me, likely is not equivalent with consistent with, especially not when Swedisch IP's sign of with Sonofzion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Dervish Tsaddik pretended to be Sonofzion, in order to assist Homey in sowing confusion; however, Sonofzion never used a Swedish IP, so that's irrelevant. Jayjg (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Then you don't know what "consistent with" means. Please stay out of this. Every single thing you get involved in ends up with people at each other's throats. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I will NOT stay out of this. If my pressence causes you so much stress, please take a break before responding. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
CJCurrie asked me a question. I answered it. There is no need for YOU to get involved in everything. Please stop responding when I discuss issues with others. I want to have nothing more to do with you. You make no contribution to the encyclopedia. All you are is trouble. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Kim has made very significant contributions to the encyclopaedia, and to my mind, a noticeboard is not the place for two-way conversations. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that she'd e-mailed you. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we e-mail, already from the beginning that I was at wikipedia. So? You e-mailed me too several times, and I am sure you e-mail with a bunch of other editors as well, so what? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If I may interject, I have watched this situation looking from the outside. My personal belief is that this is a clique war, and Homey became the casulity. Putting that remark aside, I see no point placing Ex-Homey under a block. This only encourages Homey to re-enter Wikipedia under an assumed name, and after his treatment, I can't blame him. It is better to know who your enemy is, rather than not knowing, there is nothing to gain from his ban. If he chooses to change the template of his banned accounts, so be it, I do not feel there is any harm done. I feel as though the Admin who revert those User page edits, are just spiting him, and incorrectly asserting their power. I think the behaviour of most the Admin invlovled here, really looks poorly on Wikipedia. Pete Peters 05:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean "from the outside"? From Queens University, which you attend/attended, and where Homey often edits from? Do you know Homey? Jayjg (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by "where Homey often edits from?" I graduated and left Kingston in 2003 and have been back only once. It's quite the embellishment to refer to a single day out of the past three years as "often". Sorry Jay, but I've never met Pete Peters or even heard of him prior to the above post and as engineering is a four year program the likelihood is he started going to Queen's sometime after I left. Ex-Homey 05:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, as you are very involved with the disputes regarding Homeontherange, you should undo your denial for unblocking as that should be done by an uninvolved admin, as you repeatedly has indicated yourself towards other admins. Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I second this request. I have specifically refrained from unblocking Ex-Homey myself, for the simple reason that I do not want to create even the appearance of a conflict of interest. CJCurrie 05:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read my post above. Homey could be unblocked a thousand times, he will always be reblocked eventually, because the confidence of the community has gone. KimvdLinde, you are in large measure responsible for this total breakdown in relationships that occurred, because you encouraged him. What was needed was formal mediation and a complete end to wikilawyering in order to get Homey back into the fold, as it were. In your wisdom, you forced the situation in the opposite direction, and now the editing relationships are beyond repair. If you want to stop making things even worse, you might consider staying out of the situation completely. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I have read your posts, stop assuming I do not. He is continuosly reblocked by the same small number of admins, most who had conflicts with him, or have made their opposition towards him more than clear. As such, neither of you is uninvolved, and neither of you should block him. If the community is so fed up with him as you claim, there should be sufficient number of uninvolved adimins who want to block him. Your accusation that I encouraged him is beyond the pale, but I have gotten used to your wrath by now. I suggest that you finally proof your accusation that I am to blaim for the breakdown of the RfM, you have made the accusation now so often without any evidence. And I suggest you stay away from homeontherange completly, because it is very clear to me that your continued emotional involvement causes the situation to escalate time and time over again. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with the abouve statements by Kim van der Linde.Pete Peters 06:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no emotional involvement. All I know is this: things around Homey were always tense, because he got into a lot of conflict. But they were manageable. Then you came along with your craving for trouble, your insults, your wikilawyering, and your process fetishism. You got involved in his disputes, made them a thousand times worse than they would otherwise have been, and destroyed the remaining trust that some editors still had for him. Then you scuppered the formal mediation which might have saved him. What you forget (or never knew) is that I have known Homey a lot longer than you have, and he and I used to be very supportive of each other, so I didn't particularly want to see him go down the tube. It was in order to save those long-term editing relationships, which you neither knew nor cared about, that I tried to arrange mediation. I asked your permission to reproduce your e-mails — in which it is clear that you scuppered the mediation — for the first ArbCom case involving Homey. You refused, and said not only could I not reproduce them; I should also not mention their existence!
I don't know what you're up to, or what you hope to achieve, but this is the result, and I can only hope you'll stop before you make things even worse. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
As usual, you just assert things, with no evidence linked to it. You even now claim that some unpublished e-mails will provide the evidence to that accusation. So you want to continue the claim that my involvement was essential for the RfM?
As for the e-mails, I asked you why you needed them (Fred Bauder was cc'ed on these second series of e-mails), and I even provided you with the diffs at wikipedia that provided the same information you wanted to use the e-mails for, so there was no need for them to become public, as people write things different, and sometimes are less nuanced in e-mails than online.
If you are so affraid to make things worse, I suggest you take a few steps back yourself, and let uninvolved admins deal with the issues. You are very deeply involved now in this extended conflict, but you still try to maintain that you are not, resulting in making admin decisions even with regard to homeontherange. This is very troublesome because of your strongly expressed opinion that admins that, when they are involved even marginally in a dispute, they cannot make decisions. Apparently, you use two standards for that and that is a clear indication that you should take a step back and think some things over before telling other people not to be involved. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
CJC, I have done as you requested. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll remove my comments accordingly. CJCurrie 06:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you as well. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Fred has said he supports the current block, [19] so I hope that's the end of this latest round of disruption. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to weigh in here to point out two key things:

  • The fact that an admin has taken action against an editor (through blocking, requesting checkuser, tagging socks, etc) does not mean that the admin is somehow "tainted" and not permitted to deal with user conduct problems with the same user in the future. This is a misconception that comes up frequently in the project's dealings with tenacious troublemakers who game the system. Policies such as WP:3RR, WP:BLOCK, and WP:PP only discourage admins from intervening in users with whom they have an editing dispute, that is, a content dispute. Were it not so, we would constantly have to rotate admins in dealing with a conduct problem, which is burdensome to the project because of the time it takes to understand the history behind a particular individual, as well as the very human tendency of admins to give second chances to anyone whose misconduct they have not witnessed personally.
  • Given that there is widespread consensus that Homeontherange has edited with a considerable number of sock puppets, thus making it difficult for the project to track his activities, there is no need for proof or even necessarily strong evidence that any particular sock puppet is either (a) homeontherange or (b) disruptive before it can be blocked.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • My reading of this situation is a bit different. JayJG had been involved in numerous content disputes with HotR prior to the "sockpuppets" controversy, and his actions have created (at minimum) the appearance of a conflict of interest. To your second point, I don't believe there is a widespread consensus that HotR "edited with a considerable number of sock puppets". He has acknowledged creating one-day alternate accounts after quitting the HotR handle, and has specifically denied the most significant sockpuppet accusation.
  • Given the contentious nature of this controversy, we should be especially wary about jumping to conclusions not supported by the facts. I do not believe it's appropriate to list "Barbamama" or "Fluffy the Cotton Fish" (for instance) as socks, when the evidence clearly points in a different direction. CJCurrie 04:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
"Numerous content disputes with HotR prior to the "sockpuppets" controversy?" Hardly. I barely edited his Israeli apartheid article, and we haven't been in "disputes" in months. There was no "conflict of interest", and you and Homey constantly claiming this will not make it true. In addition, I can't understand why you talk about "not supported by the facts", when you are completely unaware of them. The evidence (which you have not seen, and therefore should not have commented on) points specifically and solely to Homey (or perhaps, the aliens that took over Homey's computer) being the sockmaster of "Barbamama" or "Fluffy the Cotton Fish" . Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Readers should note that HotR and JayJG were involved in a bitter dispute on the New anti-Semitism page shortly before the present controversy began. I'm standing by my comments as to the existence of a conflict of interest. To Jay's second point, I'm not certain that seeing the evidence would make any difference: HotR has acknowledged that he used "Barbamama" as an alternate account, and has also indicated that a housemate was the primary user of "Fluffy the Cotton Fish" (although he also posted from that account a few times). Unless Jay has some magical device that can distinguish housemate from housemate and alternate account from sockpuppet, his evidence would seem to be superfluous. CJCurrie 04:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all I really don't see how you can state that the evidence doesn't support Barbarama and Cotton fish being socks of Homey. They edit in similar ways (although the negative characteristics of Homey are even more pronounced in those socks), they either seem to carry grudges or edit the same articles as Homey's "enemies", and as far as I know checkuser seems to all but confirm who the puppeteer is.
Second of all, Homey has gotten into multiple disputes with almost every administrator who touches the articles that he frequents. I really don't think we disqualify all these people based on your notion of "perceived conflicts-of-interest".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above statement by Moshe about getting into conflicts with every administrator who touches articles he frequences is incorrect and misleading. There are a select number of administrators he had issues with - SlimVirgin, Jayjg and Humus Sapiens. These administrators came to the table with views that were in opposition to those of HotR and this was the original cause of conflict. --Ben Houston 15:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The original cause Homey's conflicts were not "opposing views", but POV editing and outrageously aggressive behavior on his part. Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that Barbamama and (sometimes) FtCF were alternate accounts of HotR. What I'm disputing is that they should be classified as sockpuppets. CJCurrie 18:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify: Barbamama was created for the sole purpose of stalking and harassing me and Zeq but mainly me, as can be seen by reviewing its seven hours of existence.[20] That gave it all the apperance of the psycho stalker Wordbomb. Instead it seems to be an ex-admin who has a vendetta against some other admins, and knows how to manipulate the system in what appears to be some kind of malicious game. "Wordbomb" has been actively trashing myself and SV on the Wikipedia Review website, so none of this is the slightest bit surprising. --Mantanmoreland 18:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm... A bit of a stretch. This is an obvious clique war in which Homey was out numbered. Is this the same Zeq whose perfect behaviour is illustrated here.[21] Pete Peters 23:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No, my only interaction with "Homey" was being harassed/stalked by his "Barbamama" incarnation.--Mantanmoreland 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
A checkuser request isn't harrassment. Btw, readers might be interested to read Barbamama/HotR's first sentence in this post. CJCurrie 02:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, Mantanmoreland claims Barbamama "harassed/stalked" him yet the only edits referring to him were made tat WP:RFCU, it's talk page, and Talk:Fred Bauder asking that the results of a check user Fred evidently ran be posted. Perhaps Mantanmoreland believes he's entitled to a double standard? As for Zeq, his writing is often unintelligible, if Mantanmoreland really believes my edits were out of line he should go to The Abandonment Of The Jews and remove the cleanup notice I added and go to the request for undeletion page and request that the unencyclopedic Zionist Regime article be restored despite the fact that the AFD page I opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zionist Regime was met with a significant consensus to nix the page. Ex-Homey 05:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You're referring to "Barbamama" in the third person ("him"). But that's you or Wordbomb--I personally don't care. Cyberstalking is cyberstalking.--Mantanmoreland 13:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
CJCurrie, in a previous post on August 4 to AN/I about his sockpuppetry, Homey explicitly denied being Fluffy the Cotton Fish. He wrote:"User:Fluffy the Cotton Fish and User:4thright, for instance, were not the same person who used User:Homeontherange. I did use a few of the alleged sockpuppets after I junked Homeontherange but did so on a temporary basis (ie one day each) without bothering to retain the password ..." [22] Now, however, he seems to be saying that he was Fluffy the Cotton Fish, but insists it was an "alternate account" (i.e. one not being used for the purposes of deception) and not a sockpuppet account. How do you square these various claims? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The answer is here. I referenced this above (albeit obliquely), when I wrote "I'm not disputing that Barbamama and (sometimes) FtCF were alternate accounts of HotR." CJCurrie 02:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Right. But he said he wasn't Fluffy the Cotton Fish. How do you reconcile that with the current claim that he did use that account? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
HotR wasn't FtCF, but he used the account a few times. This isn't a contradiction. (and see below). CJCurrie 05:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That's hardly an answer. He said "User:Fluffy the Cotton Fish and User:4thright, for instance, were not the same person who used User:Homeontherange" He claimed they were not the same people, then changed his claim to say that they were the same people, just using "alternate accounts". In fact, he claimed every single one of his sockpuppets was an "alternate account", except the one he tried to pawn off on Dervish Tsaddik. Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The full quote is: the accounts were not being operated by a single person though they were using a shared semi-public IP in the computer room of a co-op. User:Fluffy the Cotton Fish and User:4thright, for instance, were not the same person who used User:Homeontherange. This statement is accurate: FtCF was a different user, although HotR has acknowledged that he also posted from the account a few times. CJCurrie 04:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
No, you're picking the wrong quote. Homey said: "User:Fluffy the Cotton Fish and User:4thright, for instance, were not the same person who used User:Homeontherange." [23] How do you reconcile that with what he's now saying? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's the complete quote: f) the accounts were not being operated by a single person though they were using a shared semi-public IP in the computer room of a co-op. User:Fluffy the Cotton Fish and User:4thright, for instance, were not the same person who used User:Homeontherange. I did use a few of the alleged sockpuppets after I junked Homeontherange but did so on a temporary basis (ie one day each) without bothering to retain the password as I do not wish to return to wikipedia permanently. He later wrote the following message to the FtCF page: This account has been used by Homeontherange but mostly by his housemate. Neither of these statements constitutes a falsehood, and the worst HotR is guilty of is not adding "... although I posted from the account a few times" in the first instance. CJCurrie 05:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
CJ, how do you know which was a sock puppet and which a meat puppet? Also, as you know (and as Homey as an ex-admin must know), WP:SOCK does not distinguish between the two. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, cool the language. Pete Peters 05:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe FtCF was a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. HotR has said that the account was used primarily by someone else in his co-op, and that he made use of the account a few times. Neither of these assertions strains credulity -- and since HotR had stopped using the HotR account at the time, neither 'puppetry charge is applicable to the situation. CJCurrie 05:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

SV's obsession with me (or perhaps more correctly her obsession at this point with undoing SimonP's upbraiding of her on her talk page) is impressive in all its tragicomic proportions but not terribly productive. This matter is at an end. I will now follow the advice of SimonP and Fred made in this thread several days ago and fully expect Slim and the gang to follow it as well. Given all the self-justifying nonsense from SV, Jay, Moshe and now Mantanmoreland I will repost it below in case it's been forgotten:

If another account like User:Fluffy the Cotton Fish appears and starts making a stream of productive edits, I see no reason to not let Homey quietly work under the new name. - SimonP 01:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

More to it than that, but based primarily on SimonP's position I am relieving Ex-homey from the condition I imposed on him. He says he may create another account to edit with quietly. Should it be found using checkuser, please leave it alone unless it is doing something wrong. Fred Bauder 20:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

And so it goes.Ex-Homey 05:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of community ban

Karmafist (talk • contribs • block log) was blocked on August 10 and has been added to the list of community bans at Wikipedia:List of banned users#Banned by the Wikipedia community. According to the policy for community bans notice of such blocks should be given on this page. --JWSchmidt 19:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds about right ... Cyde Weys 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunate, but seemingly inevitable. --CBD 21:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
IIRC a ban was mooted on this page a month or two ago, and I said at the time that it would be very unlikely that I would oppose a community ban on a user whose last articlespace edit was over 4 months ago (at time of writing it would have been 2 or 3). Nothing's changed to alter my opinion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's quite alright. This has allowed me to metamorphisize into many people on Wikipedia. After all, Karma is everywhere, and it applies to everybody. Those of you who know they have bad karma will reap the costs of their actions, and I will be around to give it a push.

Karmafist —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.114.213.251 (talk • contribs).

I agree that the notice represents proper procedure. *sigh* When I first registered my account, Karmafist was the first to welcome me to Wikipedia. This was a "conventional" welcome, prior to or unaffected by the controversy that arose concerning his messages, and I appreciated it. I'm sorry his attitude toward the project has now reached the point that this action is necessary. So very sad. Newyorkbrad 01:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked the above IP with Karmafist's above threat and then immediately got my user page vandalized. It is a reasonable assumption that this occured from Karmafist. Based on this, I have no choice but to endorse an indef ban. JoshuaZ 01:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Also given this [24] and other similar claims, I would not object to a liberal use of RfCU to search for socks. JoshuaZ 01:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, he implied one or more of his sockpuppets voted in Phaedriel's RfA, so that would be a good place to start. --W.marsh 02:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
When I saw that comment of his, I realized Karmafist was up to no good. Either he was attempting a malicious use of sockpuppets, or he was lying about it, possibly to see if he could get the checkusers to violate a bunch of users' privacy. Mangojuicetalk 05:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The vandalism of your user page with text from Stapleton International Airport strongly suggests that Karmafist is connected with (is?) The Airport Vandal. FCYTravis 02:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Wonder if he'll put that in his book... --W.marsh 02:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we can confirm it. The IP which vandalized User:JoshuaZ vandalized Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport in the same timespan. Just look at the contribs. It's The Airport Vandal, alright. FCYTravis 02:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I further note that the Airport Vandal's history of subtle vandalism to airport/airline articles and destinations is consistent with karmafist's admission to committing subtle vandalism. FCYTravis 02:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Or it could just be the airport vandal impersonating Karmafist. Let's not rush to conclusions. This latest string of edits actually seems kind of unlike Karmafist. For instance, the bit on my talk page was poorly formatted. Karmafist used Wikipedia long enough to know wiki syntax; would he really have started off his first line with a bunch of spaces, thus throwing it into an ugly pre block? Now, of course, I think Karmafist should be indefinitely banned for a variety of other reasons, but I don't necessarily think that airport vandalism is one of them. --Cyde Weys 03:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's not 100% certain, but the circumstantial evidence is too much to just ignore. FCYTravis 03:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Additional data point: Although I was previously aware of the Airport vandal, I'm pretty sure I have never reverted it, blocked it or in any other way attracted its attention. JoshuaZ 04:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
FYI, at least one other (newly promoted) admin, whom I don't believe had any issue with KarmaFist, was also hit with airport vandalism yesterday. Newyorkbrad 13:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sad to see it come to this, but I think an indef ban is the right thing here. We can't let an admission of that sort of deliberate and malicious vandalism slide. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Ok, I'm taking a bit of a risk here but I just hit the unblock button. I'm going to assume probation conditions are in effect - there is a very fine line here but I think this is the correct decision after the apology on IRC -- Tawker 07:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

For those of us "watching at home", can you clarify who apologized for what? -Will Beback 07:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, balls. Big ones. I think that while Karmafist has the potential to be a good editor again, if he keeps getting bird-dogged by the same people we'll very rapidly spiral into another indefinate block. The most recent block for incivility was stretching a very long bow, for instance. So, is it at all possible that we let someone unbloodied handle any potential problems with Karmafist from now on? - brenneman {L} 07:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I've always managed to keep Karmafist at arm's length, but I'm not hopeful on his prospect for improvement. He bears grudges against the project as a whole and boasts of vandalism. If I thought that he was likely to go back to editing, I'd welcome Tawker's unblock. As it is, I'm worried that it will simply give him a further opportunity to spread ill will. --Tony Sidaway 17:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Just today, he boasted on a you-know-which site that he still had several socks... Imho, the unblock is waaay too risky... <_< -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User continues to stalk and harrass me

Displaced Brit (talk • contribs • logs) apparently feels the need to make personal attacks and attempt to stalk me. It's getting to the point where I can no longer feel safe editing Wikipedia without this user harrassing and monitoring me.

--CFIF (talk to me) 00:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Firsfron and I have both left him warnings. Ashibaka tock 03:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Next time report such things on WP:PAIN --Nearly Headless Nick 15:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I am monitoring the situation carefully. I appreciate Ashibaka's backup.--Firsfron of Ronchester 02:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeat Copyright Offender?

Here is a copy of a recent discussion

  • I found this and was concerned about a possible copyright infringement due to it's usage on Paris's page. Lauren
I agree, I think that is a copyright infringement - you can nominate it for deletion here (Images for Deletion). It doesn't seem that it links to any articles that are using it legitimately (such as fair use articles), so I don't think there could be too much of a problem there. —Keakealani •Poke Me•contribs• 18:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help with my question, I am still trying to resolve the issue. When I went to tag the image (Playboy_March_2005.jpg) uploader's talk page, I discovered that this was not the first problem with a violation. What is the policy on repeat violation offenders? Lauren
Hm, I actually don't know how to deal with repeat offenders, but I imagine a warning of some kind might be appropriate. Perhaps you could try leaving a note on the administrators' noticeboard so an admin can take a look and leave the appropriate warning? I'm not sure if there's much else regular users can do, but I'm not really familiar enough with that sort of thing to be able to help too much, unfortunately. —Keakealani •Poke Me•contribs• 23:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the proper action in this case? Lauren 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • You're pretty much taking the proper action now. If someone is serially uploading unfree images, then a short block with progressive durations is generally in line (by that I mean 24 hr, 48 hr, 72 hr, and then ArbCom in an RFaR action). It depends upon whether the user is misunderstanding copyright or simply too obsessed with Playboy bunnies to care. If the former, we educate. If the latter, the person is a liability. Geogre 02:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Concur. Attempt to educate, then escalating blocks. Thatcher131 (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is this image copyright infringement? The picture is a magazine cover, and the article using the cover specifically discusses the contents of that issue, as well as the cover in question. Doesn't that fit the fair use guideline? Not being snide, just honestly confused. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm one of the biggest fair-use complainers around and this image seems perfectly reasonable to me (though missing detailed fair-use rationale). It's a magazine cover used in an article that specifically discusses this cover. The license is correct. It really needs a blatant source (though this is implied) and must have a detailed fair-use rationale for its use. But it's not a copyright violation. --Yamla 03:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delve deeper into the licensing statement. It says: It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover. This magazine cover image is not to illustrate the playboy magazine, but to illustrate Paris Hilton. So, once again. Let's get this fixed. Lauren 10:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Not acceptable..."unless used directly in connection with the publication of this image." As such, this one seems kosher, since the relevant section of the article in question discusses Hilton's article within the magazine and the magazine's decision to use an actress portraying Hilton rather than Hilton herself for the cover. The passage you're citing is meant to prohibit the use of magazine covers to illustrate the cover model for articles that don't discuss that model's appearance on/in the magazine, a completely different kind of usage, and one that's obviously not fair use. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I could go either way on this. Try Wikipedia talk:Fair use? Thatcher131 (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The usage of the cover is correct in this case; the cover is being discussed in an entire paragraph and is not just there for pure decoration. But I might suggest to scale the actual image down just a little bit. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What about the fact that this is not the first time this little trouble has arisen? There should be something definitive done to resolve this, whatever it is. It doesn't seem right to keep letting this happen. Lauren 21:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The original uploader was Tony619 (talk • contribs). His last image upload was October 1, 2005, so I don't think it can be classified as an ongoing problem. In general, however, repeat violators should first be treated gently and advised of the policies, and if they persist, bring it here for investigation. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, his last image upload was March 2006, and he has uploaded a LOT of playboy cover images. When I started this discussion, I didn't realize how many of these images he had uploaded. At this point, I am not worried about future violations, I am focusing on whether or not all these images are acceptable for use. I might be misunderstanding the policy. The fair use page says: Here is an example of uses that would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use: An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then fair use may apply. I still think that these cover images do not fall under fair use. Lauren 21:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Please feel free to nominate any unfreely-licensed images that are not absolutely essential at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, or simply remove them from articles and apply {{orfud}} to their image description page. Thanks. Jkelly 21:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm still trying to figure out if these are unfreely-licensed! Lauren 21:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Playboy covers are obviously not licensed and must be used according to wikipedia's fair use policy. The cover you raised initially at Paris Hilton seems to be a borderline or slightly-over-the-border-on-the-acceptable-side use, since the article discusses not only the fact that Playboy named PH the sexiest whatever, but also because the cover photo is alleged to be a fake and that is part of the article. Other Playboy covers as used in other articles may or may not be acceptable. If you need more help with figuring out when a use is "Fair" try initiating a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Fair use or pick one cover you think is a problem and nominate it for deletion at Images for deletion. The discussion there may give you more guidance. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm seeing double...

I just noticed that we've got both a Mark Taylor (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) and a Mr mark taylor (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) editing on Wikipedia. Ordinarily, one would be blocked as an impostor of the other, but both appear to be relatively long-term good-faith contributors. Should something be done about this, and if so, what? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't see why anything should be done. Nothing to see here, move along. Morwen - Talk 15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
(edit conf) We also have a Globaltraveller and a Worldtraveller, and those aren't even their real names. So I'd say no, leave as is. Mark Taylor is probably a reasonably common name (no offense). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Unlikely there socks, both naems are common ("mark", "taylor") and both seem to be good standing users. Likely Mark Taylor was taken so he subst. with Mr, which to me is acceptable as "Mark Taylor" is likely also his name. I dont think anything should be done :)! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 15:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the feedback. The only idea I could come up with was a dab header on both userpages, and that's just dumb, y'know? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
If anyone needs disambiguation on their userpages, it's Morwen and I ... Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Royalistlane - claims to be User:EddieSegoura sockpuppet

Did anyone see the page moves of Royalistlane (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) today - he apparently claimed to be a sockpuppet of User:EddieSegoura. I think we'd better watch the move log more closely.

Anyhow, he's blocked; thanks to Misza13 for blocking him! --TheM62Manchester 17:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had quite a bit to do with Eddie, right back to the original Exicornt article; reverting his edits, helping compile the Eddie sock category, etc. He has also emailed me a few times over the last year. I do not believe User:Royalistlane is really Eddie. I believe it to be a (very bad) imitator. Firstly, the account's edits are not typical of edits I've known Eddie to make (he is relatively consistent in tithe type of edits he makes and general type of article he targets). Also, Eddie has always been very offended by sock tags, always denied it is him, edit warred to get rid of the tags, etc. I don't believe that Eddie would announce on his fourth edit the account is one of his. And I don't believe he would voluntarily tag his own account as "a sock puppet of Eddie Segoura." This person's MO is, in my opinion, completely different to Eddie's. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, not sure if the IP posted on the account's talk page is correct, but if it is, it wouldn't seem to be constant with Eddie's location and previous IPs. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I believed it was Eddie due to the fact "EXICORNT" was mentioned in a pagemove - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exicornt - isn't that now WP:SALTed?? Maybe take this to WP:RFCU? --TheM62Manchester 21:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct, TheM62Manchester. Eddie is obsessed with getting the word "Exicornt" recognised on Wikipedia. But that's common knowledge and an easy thing for an impersonator to drop in to an edit summary. I'm certain Eddie was editing from various AOL IPs yesterday, but the edits from that account aren't consistent with Eddie's edits (other than dropping the word exicornt). I'm as certain as I can be that it is an impersonator, rather than a sock. I personally don't see much point in checkusering it given the account is blocked indefinitely for vandalism. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] What the heck

Could an admin check Squid Raw (talk • contribs)'s contribs? Strange stuff happening.. I don't have the patience right now. Thanks. --Fang Aili talk 19:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Say hi to another sockpuppet of user:EnthusiastFRANCE. Blocked. pschemp | talk 19:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Proxy blocked. Mackensen (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Gotta love teamwork. GJ guys. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 02:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks at Talk:Memphis, Tennessee

I posted this at WP:PAIN, but was advised to bring it here because there are multiple, non-static IPs involved, though they are all being used by one editor.

User:Reneec has been editing as 66.239.212.34 (talk • contribs), 66.239.212.23 (talk • contribs), 66.239.212.68 (talk • contribs) et al (confirmed by this checkuser request back in February, see complete list of recently used IPs below) on the Memphis, Tennessee article and talk page. The editor has made numerous personal attacks on User:Vary and me (and perhaps User:Dozenist as well) on the talk page, such as calling me childish, saying that we've engaged in lackey, sycophantic crawling, calling Vary ignorant, a Wiki Cop on a cycle of deletion, and clueless, calling me ignorant, unfriendly, and an embarassing, obnoxious despot, and so forth (there are more attacks, but I think that's enough to fairly assess the situation).

While the IPs are not static, making communication with the user directly nearly impossible, numerous attempts to get the user to stop making the attacks have been made on the Memphis talk page itself. I realize that the requisite NPA warnings do not currently appear on Reneec's talk page. Reneec has, however, been warned on his/her talk page in the past, see this and this (the warnings were removed by Reneec immediately after the warnings were given. The IPs have been warned at Talk:Memphis, Tennessee and on their talk pages here and here. Additionally, the user has violated 3RR in the article itself. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 01:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As User:66.239.212.73, Reneec just suggested that Vary see a "behavior modification specialist." Perhaps I need to list each personal attack here? Talk:Memphis, Tennessee#In the Matter of Memphis Musician David Saks is an excellent place to start for anyone who wishes to assess this situation. I would really appreciate some attention in this matter. Thanks! · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 03:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
In addition to the attacks at Talk:Memphis, the user has attacked Vary and me on our user talk pages. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 13:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The user has expanded his/her attacks/incivility to User:Scribner now, as well.[29]· j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 14:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The following is a list of IPs that have been used in the last three days by Reneec on the Memphis article and talk page:

  1. 66.239.212.90 (talk • contribs)
  2. 66.239.212.55 (talk • contribs)
  3. 66.239.212.37 (talk • contribs)
  4. 66.239.212.101 (talk • contribs)
  5. 66.239.212.68 (talk • contribs)
  6. 66.239.212.64 (talk • contribs)
  7. 66.239.212.46 (talk • contribs)
  8. 66.239.212.23 (talk • contribs)
  9. 66.239.212.34 (talk • contribs)
  10. 66.239.212.85 (talk • contribs)
  11. 66.239.212.73 (talk • contribs)
  12. 66.239.212.5 (talk • contribs)
  13. 66.239.212.63 (talk • contribs)
  14. 66.239.212.120 (talk • contribs)
  15. 66.239.212.22 (talk • contribs)
  16. 66.239.212.41 (talk • contribs)

I hope this makes assessment of the situation easier; I apologize for the length and complexity of my earlier post. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 13:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm extremely disappointed that this is being allowed to continue unchecked. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 19:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved this request to the bottom as it seems things in the middle of the page get forgotten. There is definitely some POV pushing and incivility coming from these IP addresses. A rangeblock on 66.239.212.0/24 for 24 hours should act as a wake-up. Unfortunately I can't throw it myself. Thatcher131 (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking time to look at this. Again, I apologize for the complexity of my posts here so far. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 20:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131's suggestion for a rangeblock is probably needed at this point. This attack on Vary, which was just posted a few minutes ago, is particularly nasty. Can someone please explain why my requests have been largely ignored thus far? I understand this type of thing takes a while, but these attacks are continuous and obvious, it wouldn't take a long time to assess. I was told to bring this here instead of WP:PAIN because of the range of IPs involved, but I'm wondering if that was good advice, as it does not seem to be getting much attention at all here. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 02:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto with this attack (made seconds ago) on Scribner. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 02:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That is completely unacceptable. Being poncy and condecending is one thing, but calling another editor who's scarcely even been involved in the discussion "a liar or dumbass or both?" I haven't blocked because I'm been involved in the dispute, but this person clearly needs a break. -- Vary | Talk 03:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Vary, I would block if I was an admin; is that enough endorsement for you to do it anyway? I am now thinking of a 48-72 hr rangeblock but allowing logged-in editors to edit. That prevents the anon attacks but allows Reneec to edit in her own name if she wants to. Alternatively, try requests for page protectcion. There are some different admins watching that page and they could semiprotect the article and talk page which would have the same effect as an anon-only rangeblock. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have sprotected the talk page for now. Rich Farmbrough 09:25 17 August 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Constant Forum spam on Pontiac Fiero

Can someone do something about the CONSTANT forum spam on Pontiac Fiero over the past 60 days? I remove links on a regular basis, but all I know how to do is edit articles. I'm hoping someone that knows more about Wikipedia or an admin can stop this permanently. Thanks! Stuph 23:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I put in a block request here. They're blocked now. Fan-1967 02:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hopiakuta

Look what I found: User:Hopiakuta ¡¿ doppelgänger

There is a phone number on this fake userpage, please figure out what to do with it. (I am slow-witted and don't know the appropriate action.) Ashibaka tock 23:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted that and the associated pages as nonsense.  RasputinAXP  02:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SlimVirgin plays tag

User:SlimVirgin likes to tag "suspected sockpuppets". The problem is she does so based entirely on intuition and without any basis in fact. Take this tag for instance which is of an ip address that has made a single innocuous edit. She tags it as a "suspected sockpuppet" of gnetuser despite the fact that gnetuser has never edited the article User:207.118.11.38 edited. She uses as her "evidence" Special:Contributions/88.149.150.58 except that there is absolutely no correlation between the articles edited by 88.149 and those by 207.118. Don't tagging admins have an obligation to actually build a case to support a sockpuppetry allegation and not do it purely as a whim? 172.216.75.250 00:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, Gnetwerker, what made you notice the tagging of 207.118.11.38? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not gnetworker, I guess this is another example of your intuition misfiring. I found out about it by looking at your recent edits, how else? Please don't say you're above scrutiny, the special contribs function is there for a reason.172.216.75.250 01:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
But why did you pick on that IP address to highlight, and not any of the others? And you are Gnetwerker. This is your modus operandi: posting complaints on AN/I or AN about the users you are harassing, claiming they are wikistalking you or others. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there a certain posting habit you're noticing here? Are these IPs proxies? Because they don't seem to be in the same block or anything. Ashibaka tock 00:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC) She responded on my talk page Ashibaka tock 01:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Jayjg does this too, see User talk:Irob. I don't know where exactly their evidence comes from. Ashibaka tock 00:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Why would you bring me up, and why would you even comment, if you don't know where my evidence comes from? Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I really don't know how you can positively state what her reasoning is for the tags. Anyways, they were suspected and not confirmed which means that Slimvirgin did nothing improper even if your accusations were true.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly the problem, my boy, no one can postively state what her reasoning is for the tags because she hasn't provided any evidence. Admins should put forward a credible reason before they smack on a sockpuppet tag. It certainly is improper, and a violation of AGF, to slap on a tag accusing someone of being a sockpuppet without the necessary evidence. I'm sure if someone did that to you you'd agree. 172.216.75.250 01:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually you are mistaken, nothing she did was inappropriate. What was inappropriate was for you to post something here saying she placed the tag purely based on intuition when in reality you had no idea if that was really the case.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unexplained or phantom block, confused user

User_talk:Alastor_Moody claims that he's been blocked with no explanation. There are no warnings or block notices on his page and his block log is empty. I don't know whether it's a good block or a tech glitch or a practical joke, but he's one of the youngest Wikipedians and is confused and upset. Could an Admin take a look? Newyorkbrad 00:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Is he editing from his usual IP? That might explain it. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Update: Looks like someone already got there while I was typing, although I'm curious what turns out to have happened. Newyorkbrad 00:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Probably an WP:AUTOBLOCK. Phr (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete recent posts on User talk:Nathanrdotcom

For the sake of privacy, can someone delete the last 20 or so edits on Nathan's talkpage? The Halo removed the worst of it, but the links are a but harmful to some people here. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked, confirmed that it was a damaging link, and deleted it. Although... I accidentally deleted a lot of revisions along with it... hehhhh. Actually, we should only delete links that provide personal info. Nathan should think twice about what he writes about his imaginary Wikipedian love life but he doesn't quote any personal communications or give out personal info on that page. Ashibaka tock 00:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This whole thing only proves that there are many sad lonely people spending whole their lifes in front of their computers - and wikipedia is now what public web-based chatrooms used to be. 85.70.5.66 00:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I would agree. The whole section starting with my request should be stricken from the record. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with JohnnyBGood as well. I believe that it does give out persoanl information (though it doesn't give out real names) which could lead to harrassment in the future. Also, an IP has re-added the link. The IP comes from ontario, exactly where Nathan comes from. Coincidence? Thε Halo Θ 01:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree. This is just causing me heartbreak Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 01:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't give out "personal information" in the sense that usually merits deletion, but Doc has protected it so I guess that's his call. Ashibaka tock 01:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You only think about yourself, don't you. Fredil YupigoWhat has Wikipedia become? 01:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by Doc for now. I'm afraid that neither Nathan nor his friends understand the first rule of holes. The more he writes, the more it appears he was not so misunderstood after all. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. I was on the verge of defending him until he posted through a proxy. But now I know better and knowing is half the battle (queue the GI Joe music). JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 01:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted and protected the talk page. I would ask that it remains that way, unless there is a clear consensus of arbs to do otherwise. The existence of this discussion is not in the interests of any party involved, or of wikipedia. Let's move along. --Doc 01:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It's an interest to me, though I'm not asking you to restore the conversation. Fredil Yupigo 02:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Being 'of interest' to you and being 'in your intest' are two diferent things. --Doc 07:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense sentence for Louis Jolliet

The page for "Louis Jolliet" (or Joliet) has the following sentence:

"In 1672, she said penis."

Haven't corrected it, because I wonder if anything was deleted (or replaced) when the sentence was written... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.67.66.12 (talk • contribs).

  • You can click on the history tab at the top of the article to see all the times it has be edited, and clicking on a particular date and time will show you what that version looked like. You can certainly fix it yourself if no one beats you to it. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Will314159

Note this is the second time that I am posting this here, first time was here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=69685213, but User:Will314159 keeps on going inserting non reputable pov material into the Neo-fascism article [30]. I have warned him about the 3RR rule [31], which he does not yet seem to have breached, mainly because he is just editing out of the 24hour time period. His edits have been reverted by me [32], User:DNewhall [33], User:Isarig [34] and User:Sxeptomaniac [35], at multiple times [36]. This reverting has become quite tiresome. Any help would be appreciated!! Intangible 00:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Material is sourced, documented and has been modified to meet all objections except Isarigs and Inangibles. They object because they are Israel apolologists. That is their sole reason for objection and it is pure POV and w/o merit. Professor Juan Cole's opinion that Likud is neo-fascist a valid opinion. see talk page. They are trying to exercise thought control and censorship by their continuous deletions and reversions. Will314159 01:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] copyvio photo Image:Truong.jpg

It was uploaded by blocked troll User:DocCory who was blocked as a sock of banned User:Amorrow. First uploaded as "Sam Sloan has released all rights" but then changed to self-GFDL when someone complained about the license. Actual source of image is http://www.ishipress.com/uswomans.htm - I have doubts that Sam Sloan is the photographer but it's sort of possible that he is. Sloan does sometimes release rights to photos.

It's a pretty good bet that 75.26.6.189 (talk • contribs) is the same person as DocCory and also needs a block if he keeps editing. Phr (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeq copyviolation

Zeq has copied verbatim much of a newspaper article [37] into a new article called Metula Farms. This is the second time he's committed this sort of blatant copyvio. I have placed a copyvio notice on the page and reported it accordingly. Since I'm going someone else is going to have to watch User:Zeq's edits as almost every edit he makes is problematic either because it is incomprehsible, blatant POV pushing or a blatant copy violation. Ex-Homey 07:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted as copyvio. El_C 08:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Glad to see that El_C is taking part in "watching User:Zeq's edits" which is also called "Wikistalking".
There is no copyright notice on this article and under fair use it is prefectly fine to include this article in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia.
If El_C feels she want to chenge the text and remove some parts of it she can always edit the article but to delete a complete article is pure vandalism and mis use of admin powers cause the history (including her vandalism) can not be traced. El_C again misused her admin powers in a place where she had an edit conflict. Zeq 11:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted copyvio, again. If Zeq is to continue to plagiarize, he will be blocked from editing. El_C 12:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Zeq - Please see WP:CSD#Articles, which describes the circumstances under which recent copyvio articles can be speedily deleted, and also note the copyright tag at the bottom of the source site ("© Copyright 2006 Haaretz. All rights reserved"). This was a blatant copyvio, and I see no problem with El C's actions. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[38] that was another copyvio by Zeq, he should be banned by now, shame I can't publicly list this stuff anymore thanks to SlimVirgin, PinchasC and co. Deuterium 12:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

      • Total BS. I have actually contacted the organization and they do not claim any copy right this list of events. You (and El_C) have problem with content that you think is "pro-Israel" . that is all there is to it. You havwe a political agenda and pushing it by claimng "bad edits" Zeq 12:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh really? Well, show the email then. Deuterium 12:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a big diffrence between deleting an article and deleting of some of the content. Not all the article was based on fair use. Some of it was based on not copy righted material and yet El_C have dleted the article in a way that the history is no longer available. This is edit war and mis use of Admin power. Zeq 12:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why try to push the envelope of what is allowable? Even if some of the material was original to you, it's not good to leave it to us to try to unscramble what is and what isn't legitimate. Suggest you write material that contains no copyright breaches, rather than complain and make claims of impropriety when your failure to do so causes problems. Metamagician3000 13:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  • OK good suggestion. Zeq 14:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section 8

Section 8 in WP:CSD#Articles sais: "The article and its entire history contains only copyright violation material" This clearly was not the case. El_C: Please avoiding deleting the asrticle history (I am recreating it) You can always edit the article but keep the history intact. Zeq 12:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If Zeq recreates the copyvio article a 3rd time, he will be blocked for up to one year, as in, his 6th block. El_C 13:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
As I read that, 2 of the article bans were rescinded, so I don't think they count. I see two blocks and one article ban. Since he hasn't violated the article ban to earn another block you can't hold that against him either, If you block him for recreating a copyvio, I think you're limited to a week as the third block. Thatcher131 (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I consider article bans to equate a block (the blocks were rescinded, too); I encourage you to seek clarification from the Arbitration Committee if you dispute this apporach, as I intend to implement it and caution against wheel warring (i.e. without such efforts). El_C 13:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I will seek such clarification now. El_C 13:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
There is certainly an element of community exhaustion of patience at this point, but the arbcom ruling says enforcement of bans may be by blocking, so it's hard for me to see how being banned from an article also counts as a block for enforcement of a ban. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
What is the point of this comment? I have already sought clarification from the Committee, as I mention above. El_C 14:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If it doesn't qualify for speedy, you can always list it on AFD and close it early after it gets dogpiled (as it probably will since it's a copyvio). After that, it's easy to speedy as a repost of deleted content. Of course, Zeq's behavior at this point is pretty well over the line into Wikilawyering, given that he now knows that the material is protected by copyright. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It qualifies for a speedy for copyvio/plagiarism; let's not play process games, especially when these are themselves, out of process. El_C 14:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Works fine by me. I hedged a bit because I can't see the deleted version. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. For the record: virtually all of the paragraphs were simply lifted by Zeq from the aforementioned Haaretz article. El_C 14:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Not true. If anyone has a way to create the article as it was you are welcome to check if the first sentence apear anywhere on the web - It was not. There for it does not qualify for speedy delete as per section 8. Zeq 14:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned, the Arbitrators have been informed of this (and other) incident(s), and they will render their decision soon. El_C 14:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user:Ex-Homey (again)

This is a banned/blocked user, who used many sock puppets. He asked to be able to participate in his own ArbCom case so he was unblocked but he uses the edits for other issues as well:

Special:Contributions/Ex-Homey

Please check what should and can be done. Tnx. Zeq 11:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So long as this involves pointing out gross policy violations on Zeq's part, I find great benefit in his participation outside of arbitration pages. El_C 12:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Zeq, aren't you already in trouble for unfairly picking on Homey?[39] Pete Peters 20:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alniko (talk • contribs)

Please block the user Alniko from personalattacks. He is vandalazig the pages of Thiruvananthapuram, Kochi and Kerala. Many users have warned him many times in his talk page, but still not willing to listen. He is editing from the IP addresses 203.199.213.66 and 203.199.213.67

Please block this user Alniko and his IP addresses 203.199.213.66 and 203.199.213.67. -- Sathyalal Talk to Sathya 12:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


I too agree for blocking the user Alniko and his IP addresses 203.199.213.66 and 203.199.213.67
He is continously engaged in edit war, and is vandalising the pages.
He is attacking the editors with abusive words.
He is not adhering to the Neutral Point of View.
Further, he is not much used to wikipedia, and hence his reverts are to a very old version, which might be stored in his PC. He is just deleting and then copy-pasting the article from his PC, which contains several spelling mistakes, and fabricated facts.
Despite several warnings, he is not complying to the policies.
His editions and reverts are in the pages of Thiruvananthapuram, Kochi and Kerala.
He is continously violating NPOV policy by adding commentary and his personal analysis into articles.
Furthermore, he violates the three-revert rule.
You can see his personal attacks in the talk pages of Sathyalal, Samaleks, Alniko(the unsigned comments are made by him - he often comments in his own talk_page !!) and in the history section of Thiruvananthapuram, Kochi, and Kerala pages.
Admins, please take impose immediate blocking upon the user:Alniko and his IP addresses 203.199.213.66 and 203.199.213.67 to stabilaze the articles.
Thank you.

-- Rajith Mohan :) (Talk to me...) 13:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:158-152-12-77

158-152-12-77 (talk • contribs) was reported to AIV as a username block (it does go against WP:USERNAME), but as a longtime editor I personally didn't see a need to block. They have never been blocked previously, so if they were up to naughtiness I'd assume they would have accrued at least one. However, since this is contrary to policy I felt I needed to post here and see if others concur. Syrthiss 12:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't block so quickly, I would wait to see if he is either willing to change usernames or prove that he is the same person as the IP User:158.152.12.77 —Mets501 (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Uhh, I said I wasn't inclined to block at all...even if they don't reply about being the ip. ;) Syrthiss 12:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, now they have verified that they are the same person (the User and the IP), so I think we can let this go. —Mets501 (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It still violates two parts of the Username policy, as I pointed out on the user's talk page, but I've no great wish to pursue this. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken formatting on Portal:Current events/August 2006

Something is badly broken with the formatting on this page (see the entries lower dowb the page), yet a cursory attempt to debug it does not appear to show any problems: where should this kind of problem be reported? -- The Anome 12:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've commented on your talk page; the bug has been reported by multiple people at multiple wikis regarding pages that use a large number of templates. -- tariqabjotu 13:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do this

Ban the nazi scum that is CAD6DEE2E8DAD95A (talk • contribs). John Hron and Björn Söderberg are just two of the people that was murdered by CAD6DEE2E8DAD95A's friends. To take into consideration; Wikipedia has servers in Germany where it is illegal to provide a platform for nazis. /Bergerons --81.216.72.145 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't ban people based on personal beliefa. Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 13:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I support an indefinite block for Nazi apologism. El_C 13:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to suggest that it would be better for the project to be dispassionate about everything but making a better encyclopedia here. Anyone who can edit productively and is not harmful to the community in their on-wiki actions should be theoretically welcome here. --Improv 21:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't. I support blocks for behavior, not for beliefs. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The heading of the discussion of "Zionism" states nothing about the neutrality of the article being disputed. When the discussion of Zionism does not contain a statement that the ideology calls for a state of Israel AND the expulsion of Arabs from their land it is not a definition, merely propaganda. It states this clearly in their charter regarding Arabs, as do Zionists if you ask them, which is a large contributor to why UN resolution 3379 states that Zionism is equal to racism. The entire planet voted yes to this definition. The only nays being of course USA and Israel. Your discussion of Zionism is far fetched, neutrality disputed, cuddly, intellectually dishonest, and out right misleading to all who read this "definition". Who wrote this and why on "wikipedia" is that person the final authority???Suffolklaw 13:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why a new account just for this single (and long-winded, offtopic) comment? El_C 13:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I support a ban for this user's edits, and a gibberish username.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked indefinitely per Wikipedia:Username: "Names that consist of random or apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers" are inappropriate. Bishonen | talk 13:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC).

Good work. Any grounds to block Nazis is okay with me. El_C 14:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Needless to say, I have blocked Suffolklaw indefinitely. El_C 14:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the "Nazist" userbox from scrambled alphabet's userpage. Some userboxen cannot be retained even in userspace if they bring the project into disrepute. Metamagician3000 14:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Good, the "Nazist" userbox should have never existed. Tagged as {{indefblockuser}}. El_C 14:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
If CAD6DEE2E8DAD95A creates a new account, other block reasons may come into play: he's Swedish and amuses himself by making "Swedish" jokes such as beginning an otherwise civil post at User talk:Humus Sapiens with the apparently meaningless phrase "Hey Jude", linked to the Beatles song. (In Swedish: "Hej Jude" = "Hi, Jew", har, har.).[40] Bishonen | talk 14:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC).
I also concur with the indefinite block of Suffolklaw in the particular circumstances where it looks like this account was created just to make such comments here. I don't see that as banning someone solely for their personal belief. But if the sole ground for banning someone was a known extremist or hateful belief I'd need to think about it, and would like to see community input first. That's not the case, of course, with either of these accounts. Good riddance. Metamagician3000 14:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If Alphabet does return I think he's done enough already to have exhausted the community's patience, given the further info from Bishonen. No one would undo a block against a person who has done that (I hope). Metamagician3000 14:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Bishonen & El C for banning the nazi scum. Now please consider blocking Jayjg for abuse of CheckUser, and disclosing my personal information (despite me asking him not to) to these people. Thanks. /Bergerons --81.216.72.86 15:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No personal information has been disclosed, and please stop vandalising pages. Jayjg (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Untrue, and misleading. But I didn't expect anything else from the ultimate FNC admin. Cheers. /Bergerons --213.80.7.238 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Random passer-by here, I couldn't help but notice that "CA D6 DE E2 E8 DA D9 5A" or "CAD6 DEE2 E8DA D95A" is hexadecimal, and probably stands for something (presumably horrible) in Unicode via one of its encodings (UTF-8, UCS-2, UTF-16, etc.) -- 62.147.113.254 15:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SqueakBox sockpuppets

I am normally the administrator who patrols WP:SSP as such, and have already blocked a previous sock of SqueakBox, which I later blocked him because of his Arb Com ruling. Now, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SqueakBox (2nd) has appeared. I would highly appreciate it if another administrator would review the case and judge best whether or not this is a sock. I am currently involved in a "dispute" with Squeak, and therefore cannot block him if this is a sock. If it is likely this is a sock, Squeak must be blocked for violating the agreement with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas. Thank you. Iolakana|T 13:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Alexwoods and User:208.226.153.24

The above users are the same. Originally this fellow got very upset with me for including a translation of Catullus 16 in a rap style on the Catullus 16 page, removing it and dismissing it as "retarded and offensive." I've left it out, as he desired. Since then, he's made numerous backhanded compliments but more insults, such as "maybe your high school teachers can set you straight." He has a history of highly insulting edit summaries, such as "Meizhou (→Culture - Took out some bullshit. This article is a disgrace." and "Chinese hip hop (Cui Jian is not a fucking rapper)" and "Roman legion (→Early history - removed bullshit put in by some stupid teenager)." These are some of the most egregious ones. I've warned him, he's been nothing but defiant. He baited me with another message to my talk page again. I'm not interested in continuing fighting with him. He looks like a fairly troublesome and belligerent user, and I'd like him off my back. He's gotten exactly what he wanted from me, but still he harrasses me. Please, help. I don't want to be uncivil. I've already told him to go away, but he still wants to initiate argument. Billy Blythe 14:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I gave a warning to him, but as so often happens with these things you don't seem to be have been completely civil, either, in dealing with people involved in debate about Catullus. I don't see anything from you as egregious as what he has said, but it's hard from a quick look to sort out the rights and wrongs of the history. Try to be polite to everybody even if you feel provoked. Let me or another admin know if you encounter any further attacks like this, but don't reply in kind. Metamagician3000 15:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move of Welsh self-government to Welsh nationalism

From Wikipedia:Requested moves, where it had been for 8 days and when there had been no more Talk comments for 5 days, I moved this page (over a redirect) to its more common, applicable name based on the reasoning in the request at Talk:Welsh self-government#Requested move, on reading the article, and on a search of Google Scholar and the Proquest academic and journalistic database. The two oppositions to the move did not really apply: one was only because of bad capitalization in the original proposal ("Welsh Nationalism"), which was corrected, and the other was a general comment in favor of standardizing all similar articles to consistent names (rather than having English nationalism, Cornish self-government movement and Scottish independence, etc.). Therefore, I moved the page.

Less than a minute after, the user who moved the page from its original position in February, at "Welsh nationalism", who did not express an opinion in the move discussion, suddenly opposed it [41] and contacted me at User talk:Centrx#Page move, soon after which he added that he thought it was an issue that warranted mention here as an administrative incident [42]; so I have added this here. He also moved the page back to "Welsh self-government". There is an IP 'vote' which he accuses of sockpuppetry, but rather than counting numbers, I gauged consensus by looking at the reasons in each opinion; while, if true, vote-stacking would warrant administrative action (and I don't know the history alluded at the denied Checkuser request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Normalmouth), but this is not a straight vote, and what is relevant is the reasons for and against, which I evaluated carefully. —Centrx→talk • 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You did not close the discussion before you moved the page! I thought that this was User:Normalmouth using yet another sockpuppet. I did not realise that it was an Admin closing the discussion. How on earth can he move the page without closing the dicussion first? And why is he moving a page that has zero support (apart from an IP sockpuppet of the proposer)? --Mais oui! 16:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It is very, very important to note that I moved the page back because I thought it was vandalism. There was nothing on the Talk page to say that an Admin had closed the debate. And further, I would like it noted that I spent so long reporting Normalmouth to CheckUser for sockpuppetry that I clearly had fortgotten to vote in the Requested move discussion myself. --Mais oui! 16:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not accusing you of a bad faith revert, but immediately threatening anyone with administrative reports does not help anything. Regardless of whether a user is an administrator, it is not appropriate to assume bad faith, especially when the move had a reasonable edit summary and the user's talk page is evidently not that of a newly registered or weird user. I closed the discussion a minute after I moved the article, not a big deal (closing before would solve this sort of problem, but there are, perhaps pedantic, reasons why I haven't in the past). The article was moved based on support of the nominator and myself in light of strongly prevailing reasons, when all expressed opposition was contingent on corrected problems or was vague and not relevant to this particular move. —Centrx→talk • 17:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zereshk PA on User Page

The user wrote the following personal attack on his user page in reference to Wikipedians: And after that, if I still do find a few spare minutes, I may manage to spend the time editing some articles on the WikIran project. WikIran is a far more reliable source on Iran, far from partisan propaganda editors and sadistic admins. [43] The user was blocked in the past for using his user page to attack other Wikipedians [44] [45] [46]--Jersey Devil 23:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jtkiefer

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

Some rather ugly things coming to light at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jtkiefer 3: Jtkiefer (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), who is also apparently Pegasus1138 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), has had various interesting interactions between his accounts, including responding to his 3RR report, telling himself that he won't block himself for 3RR, supporting himself for a bot flag (but opposing his own RFA), double-voting on RFAs, and other such things. What do we do now? I would suggest an indefinite block of at least one of the accounts—perhaps with a shorter block on the other—and possibly a checkuser to see if he has any other sockpuppets waiting in the wings. Kirill Lokshin 16:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Pegasus1138 as an admitted sockpuppet engaged in devious activity. I would support a long block -- even an indefinite one -- on Jtkiefer, but will not impose it myself, given his history of hostility to me. Xoloz 16:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Support, way beyond anything acceptable. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Some other strange goings-on here that may relate to this case. Kirill Lokshin 17:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for top-posting, but use RFAR. This is a picture perfect RFAR situation and the living example of a thing not to be done by head nods on AN/I. Geogre 19:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
So is User:Thygard another sockpuppet? A checkuser seems strongly in order. JoshuaZ 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
What makes you suspect that? Editor88 17:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Never mind... I've got it figured out. 17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I am in the strange position of having some good memories of Jtkiefer (and incidentally, bad ones of Pegasus). At this time, and based on this evidence, I would not yet be willing support an indefinite block. While there is evidence of abusive sockpuppetry, and the puppets should be blocked, so far I don't see enough evidence of the kind of persistent disruption that normally motivates an indefinite block. Dragons flight 17:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I have indefinitely blocked Thygard for the same reason as Pegasus1138. Xoloz 17:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Moved from WP:AN

Due to the gravity of the persistent and repeated abuses of trust reported in the course of Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jtkiefer_3, I propose that we ban him from Wikipedia [47]. --Tony Sidaway 17:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. His actions convince me that he should never be an admin, and any future RfAs should be speedily closed. He should also be limmited to one account. But aside from that, I think probation rather than a ban is in order. There is no evidence (that I know of) that he's been a particularly disruptive editor. Arbcom might be better than an outright ban. --Doc 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Per Doc, I would suggest an RfArb over anything else. — FireFox (talk) 17:21, 11 August '06
Hi, everyone. I must say that I disagree with a community ban. I know I'm not an admin, but I have just finished looking over the situation out of my own curiosity, and I don't believe that he's actually harmful. I agree that his potential future RfAs should be speedily closed and he should be limited to one account, but I don't think an indefinite ban is necessary - I'd say ArbCom. Sorry if I'm out of place... Srose (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Your comments are certainly not out of place. (Particularly since you are agreeing with me - which shows your inate wisdom ;).) --Doc 17:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Doc is, I think, quite right, and his suggestions seem roughly orthogonal with those of Cyde infra. Jtk should be limited to one account, of course, with the provision that his creating a sockpuppet for the purpose of disrupting projectspace will be strongly disfavored; his mainspace participation seems to be altogether fine, and I don't think there's any risk of disruption relative to work on articles. I'm not certain that a year-long ban from RfA is in order—his only sockpuppeteering at RfA seems to have been relative to his own RfAs, and I can't imagine that he'll be requesting adminship anytime soon—since he may have particular prescience apropos of the judgment of prospective admins, but I don't think such a ban would be particularly wrong. Joe 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So how about this: Jtkiefer is put on a standard one-year probation with an added provision of being banned from RFA and its subpages (for one year). He is also limited to only one account. --Cyde Weys 17:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Concur, for reasons enumerated above. Joe 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
He should also be banned from WP:FPC for sockpuppet voting there as well. -Ravedave 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should close the admin window on him permanently - changes can happen outside of one's imagination. I do, however, prefer that he be required go through Editor review before his next admin application. Editor88 17:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I say ArbCom and RFC (should have been RFCU). I definitely feel there should be consequences over this, but a community ban seems a bit much. So ArbCom to get official status of some consequences/limits, and RFC to find any other current problem socks. - TexasAndroid 17:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
RFC? Maybe a straight checkuser would be more effective in actually finding out what his other socks are? Kirill Lokshin 17:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. Checkuser is exactly what I meant. I just typed the wrong acronym. Sorry for any confusion. - TexasAndroid 17:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I was going to say. RFC in this case would just become a venue to bash him. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a lot of ugly in that RFA, but if he can agree to having only one account, there's a possibility he can still be a useful editor (though not an admin or anything with additional trust, apparently). Very sad to see this occur...I think Cyde has an acceptable compromise here. Are you actually intending to forbid him from voting on RFAs, though? -- nae'blis 17:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Given his use of sockpuppets to get muliple votes on at least three previous RFAs (that we know of), there need to be some consequences and provisions to ensure the integrity of the process. --Cyde Weys 17:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Good point, I was just making sure I understood your proposal. I'm not entirely certain how CheckUser works (not having the bit), is it only done on comparison of users, or does it reveal all users at a particular IP? I ask because it would make a difference in my confidence of all socks being caught/gone... -- nae'blis 18:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree with finding his various sockpuppets, it would help over at WP:FPC -Ravedave 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Indef ban may be a bit of an overkill, but I would support a RfAr hearing on all these. - Mailer Diablo 17:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • ArbCom is probably a cleaner way of going about this than a straight ban; but the various sockpuppets should be blocked outright. There's no need to risk having some of them slip under the radar at this point. Kirill Lokshin 17:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just bringing it to everyone's attention: [48]. — FireFox (talk) 17:36, 11 August '06

  • I think indef block is too harsh, but placing Jtkiefer on probation for a year would be suitable. The socks should be indef blocked of course. Doubt an ArbComm case would be productive, there's really not much to arbitrate. -- Миборовский 17:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that Jtkiefer could be a good article editor again but should not be given any positions of trust, or allowed to comment or vote on them, until maturity has been demonstrated. I'd rather see him restricted to his current account with some curbs in place (no standing or running for admin, arb, or 'crat, and no commenting on other candidacies, not commenting/voting on anything else either) instead of his setting up another identity which then has to be managed/monitored somehow (and without fishing around it might be hard to do that anyway...) ++Lar: t/c 19:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • One oppose vote by a new editor was odd to me in Jtkiefer's RfA. Namely by Republitarian (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). The user registered 2 days ago and started editing with edit summaries etc. Just strikes odd, with that previous self-oppose incident also. feydey 19:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Not one of mine, sorry to burst the bubble of anyone who expects to find more socks, Pegasus and Thygard were my only two. Jtkiefer 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't bother

Don't bother, I am perfectly capable of knowing where and when I am not wanted and I am obviously not wanted here, please also indef. block Jtkiefer if it'll make you feel better but I'll save you all the trouble and go through a self imposed wiki-ban, for the record all I ever wanted to do was help the project, everything I did was an attempt to help though I honestly don't expect you all to believe that, well so long and thanks for all the fish. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, you are wanted so long as you make good contributions, and not the types of shenanigans that have upset so many. - Taxman Talk 17:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, while recent revelations have been distressing, the person most hurt by Jtkiefer's behaviour is almost certainly Jtkierer, himself. And the fact of opposing his sockpuppet's RfA suggests that this is not a straightforward case of duplicity for the motive of gain, but that the user may have been going through problems that we know nothing about. AnnH ♫ 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
(sigh) It's not that you are not wanted, just that certain behavior is not wanted. All discussion here seems to be related to project-space problems; can you handle being "just" an article editor for a while, to re-establish trust? -- nae'blis 18:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Jt, I don't believe you would dispute that your actions have been less than appropriate. People are responding to them differently, and at this point the community has not come to any kind of decision -- and I don't suppose that it would be reasonable for you to expect that all of this be forgotten at the drop of a hat: if you want this to be let go eventually, the first step is to own it, that is, accept responsibility for the mistakes made.
I don't have a crystal ball, of course, but if I had to guess, I'd say you are not likely to be banned, but you are equally unlikely to become an administrator, or to hold any kind of special position in this community. If you can settle for being an editor (and doing it from a single account), who knows, in the future (granted, it would take a lot more time than "usual"), you might even arrive at a point where the community will we willing to trust you with Admin tools again. But if you up and leave now, nothing gets resolved, and the last memory of your participation in the project would be this debacle. Would you say that's fair? Be patient; accept responsibility. And don't get angry because people are having a hard time digesting what has happened, since that's not fair either. Redux 18:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
<de-indent> I thought I did, anyway yes I do take responsibility for what I was doing was wholly innapropriate and wrong and I apologize for violating everyone's trust, in my defense of Pegasus1138 though that sock was actually known and permitted by both Jimmy Wales and the arbitration committee in respone to the RFA/RFB incident that happened between the two accounts. Jtkiefer 18:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Jt is correct to some extent. He/She certainly IS unwanted by some of us. The unbelievable and offensive arrogance he/she showed at WP:FPC speaks volumes. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention to arrogance of self-nominating a sock puppet for RfA four times. -Will Beback 20:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Good article editors are welcome always, but this user should never be an admin. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The regularity with which this user has attempted to gain "authority" over others here (and the underhanded tactics utilized) indicates (IMO) that he/she should be banned permanently from the Wikipedia. There is no place in our community for someone with the mindset that this user displays. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solution

As I've said I am going on a self imposed Wikiban from this account and the other 2 have already been blocked and I fully agree to a community enforced one account probation, however due to the strong feelings in this case I am loathe to do it on this account and once this discussion has died down I will be scrambling my passwords on this and the other two accounts to long letter/number combinations to prevent abuse by myself or others. Considering that if my one account would not have a fair shot of being a good editor I would not publicly reveal what the nick is (when I have created it) however if a few trusted Wikipedian's would come forth and swear secrecy I think that having them as oversight would be a good idea, that way the needs of the community knowing what I'm doing and the needs of me being able to make a fresh start under one account would be met. Jtkiefer 17:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to this, on the one additional proviso that, if you ever want to seek RFA on the new account, you must publically reveal the link in the process. This may result in it being impossible for you to ever get adminship back, but I'm afraid that that would have to be part of the consequences for you actions. For you to ever seek adminship again, it must be done in the public light. I have no problem with you returning to edit quietly, but I have a big problem with the possibility of you using that secrecy to try to get adminship once again. As for who could be trusted to know your new account, User:Kelly Martin, for one, appears to have been trusted by you for quite a while, and could possibly be one of the people, IMHO. - TexasAndroid 18:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Considering that Pegasus dissappeared with a very similar claim, I still think an RFCU would be in order. JoshuaZ 18:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Already filed. - TexasAndroid 18:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I've taken this to Requests for arbitration [49]. --Tony Sidaway 18:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
And the request for checkuser was shot down as a fishing expedition, I have already created my single use account btw, and as per the community imposed terms (and I don't think anyone will disagree if I say that this is the probation version of a community ban decision} of the single account probation I have created my secondary account, and as of now am limiting this account to this AN/I thread, my user, talk, and subpages, and the pending RFAr against me. Jtkiefer 18:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I would not call it "Shot Down". Mackensen said there were no "extant accounts" other than the 3 we already know of. (And he deliberately did not reveal the new account, if it had been created before the check) I read this as check performed, nothing found beyond the known ones, and possibly the new one. As such I consider the RFCU issue to be closed. - TexasAndroid 18:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a very accurate analysis of it actually, so hopefully that can be put to rest. Jtkiefer 18:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a status update, I have scrambled the passwords for both Pegasus and Thygard so I no longer have access to either account, nor is there an email address set for either account. Jtkiefer 18:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Both accounts are blocked indefinitely, so that's a moot point actually. - Mailer Diablo 18:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, but I think it's an attempt at showing good faith on my part in me accepting using only one account if nothing else. Jtkiefer 19:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be quite irresponsible for us to Assume Good Faith on your part after your behavior. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I support arbitration to examine the entire history and all areas of potential abuse by the editor. For the record, I was seconds from blocking him for his utterly unacceptable attack of JDG [50], only to find out this was his (not his 1st) "I'm leaving" note. El_C 21:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FPC

For the record, Jtkiefer has been involved in some potential irregularities on the WP:FPC. See here for details. His/Her consistent attempts to act as if he/she has "authority" over others or some special status seem in the same vein as his/her attempts to achieve adminship. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage deletion

I have requested several times that User:Thygard be deleted using {{db-owner}} perfectly in line with policy it has been confirmed that I am the owner and it is not a talk page. The sock notice which should be preserved is also present on the the talk page so that's not an issue eithyer. My requests while inline with policy have been deemed "vandalism" and my userpage ad been protected against even me editing it. Could an admin please fulfill my request? thanks. Jtkiefer 20:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC) CanadianCaesar has brought up the good point that there may be an administrative need to keep the page, I disagree since my userpage is just links and notes created as a listing of my interests and some of my comings and goings and unlike my talk page has no real administrative substance but more comment is probably needed in that regard. Jtkiefer 21:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It is useful in that it serves as a link to the contributions of that "user". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Per policy and common practice, the userpage may be blanked, deleted and protected; the talk page may be blanked as a courtesy but will not be deleted, to retain the history of comments, warnings, etc. Even at a blanked/deleted user page, the contribs link will still work. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, you learn something new every day. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution

I'm bringing this back out of the archive to bring a final resolution. It seems there is consensus for a one account limitation for Jtkiefer and he has agreed to this. Because the issue was already more or less decided here, the arbitration request was declined. The only outstanding issue is for Jtkiefer to disclose to a number of people what new account he is editing under so they can prevent future abuse. While Jtkiefer wants that to be permanently secret, he has abused that in the past, so it seems reasonable to keep the identity secret unless he tries to do anything irregular (such as supporting the positions of his sockpuppets or anything else in WP:SOCK or tries to stand for adminship or another position of importance. There has been a checkuser performed, and it looks like another would need to be run unless Jtkiefer voluntarily discloses his new account to at least a few members of the arbcom and a couple bureaucrats. I'm willing to be one of the bureaucrats the account is disclosed to, but I'm also fine if people don't want me to be one of them for whatever reason. Once the account is disclosed the people that know should confirm they know and by private means confirm it is the same one. Thanks all. - Taxman Talk 17:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you have informed Jtkiefer about this discussion on his talk page. I suggest that, if he should want to continue editing under a new account, he should contact a bureaucrat and disclose his username. It doesn't need to be generally published, as long as it is known within the bureaucratship. If he doesn't come forward within a month or so, I guess we assume he's not interested. If he is then detected at some time in the future (due to problematic behavior) then we'll deal with that when it arises. --Tony Sidaway 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I agreed to use one account and continue to agree to however I do not agree with mandatory disclosure should I request adminship and that's holding me back from full agreement from this. I understand the community has an interest in knowing if I ever go up for adminship again, however statements like dante's "oppose indefinitely" make me weary of disclosure since I feel that I will never be able to get a fair chance again for adminship due to people who will infinitely oppose even after I've earned trust again, also I am not sure if the community will accept anything short of the arbcom and even though I am trying to assume good faith I do not have faith that this won't be done then I'll end up being perm banned by some admin who can claim that this isn't a "community wide decisions". Jtkiefer 18:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we reallize that you want to be able to reapply without having to disclose the situation, but that is unacceptable. Many RfA's pass with some opposes and some with a significant amount. If significant time passed where you were able to demonstrate an exemplary edit history and some patience, then I believe you could have a successful RfA. Heck, not that many Wikipedian's stick around forever. If you're patient enough, you can out-wait them and then your candidacy would be fully judged on the merits. - Taxman Talk 18:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
We're at a bit of an impasse then since disclosure while not originally unacceptable to me has been made unacceptable by comments by people who will hold a permanent grudge against me and to answer the accusation that I might do something suspicious that would warrant another checkuser, as I said before this account is only being used to respond to these threads and to notes on my talk page and on my undisclosed I'm going back to my basics and trying to get some article editing done in peace. Jtkiefer 18:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, sorry, but then I think the only option is forced disclosure or community ban. Restriction to one account with disclosure if need be was just a compromise to allow you to edit. If you are unwilling to disclose the situation should you choose to try for a position of importance, it would be disclosed for you. You made your choices, now you don't want to have to live with the consequences. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. - Taxman Talk 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It sounds like you want to create a new identity, rack up some edits, promptly apply for adminship again, and a month later for bureaucratship. I can sympathize with you wanting a blank slate for editing, but your constant need for more power is very suspicious, and any future applications for adminship under a new identity should include your past history in this area. If there has been sufficient time and good behavior then I'm sure people can overlook your past deceptions, but it's not going to happen in 2 months like I think you expect. If you don't agree with the terms Taxman outlined, then I would propose that your other account be revealed and blocked, and you be restricted to editing as user User:Jtkiefer. 12.75.4.22 20:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Jt, the only reason it seems that people will hold permanent grudges is because they do. You burned a lot of bridges, did you really think that people would just ignore it? Your actions have consequences, and one of those is that you don't get a free pass to have a secret identity so you can be an admin. This is not a matter of us failing to Assume Good Faith, you've PROVEN (more than once) that this community cannot trust you and that you do not care about the opinions of the people who make up the community. If you want to be an admin, you go ahead and convince a sizable majority of people that they can trust you. Now, I doubt you'll be able to do that, but you are entitled to try... OPENLY. I would also like to make a special request that someone who's a regular on the WP:FPC page be made aware of Jt's secret identity, as there are concerns about his behavior on that page specifically. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
A possible other solution, since it appears that I risk being banned if I don't give into being railroaded, what if I edit only as Jtkiefer and do a 6 month voluntary ban on all spaces outside of article/user/and user talk with a one year ban from FPC and RFA and all subpages and related pages, which of course would be enforced not only by myself but the community at large I guess since I can assume that from now on all my contributions will be gone over with a fine tooth comb, this is not my first choice for a solution and the conversations above so that you do not have a legitimate excuse for a community ban as the community by and large is split over possibly banning me but I'm willing to abide by it if it will appease Taxman, Dante, and the community. Jtkiefer 00:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Threads on AN and AN/I directly about me would be exempt from this as would RFAr's and RFC's against me of course since even though I don't forsee ever having to use it again I should be able to take part in the dispute resolution procedure if needed. Jtkiefer 00:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Note that I have no special weight here, other than that I have been especially vocal in my disapproval of Jtkiefer's recent controversial behavior. As such, Jt has referenced me by name above, and accordingly, I am responding. I will grant that "permanent" was perhaps a bit harsh on my part with respect to a ban. I suppose it is possible for people to "reform" and change their attitude, so leaving the door open in the future is not wholly unreasonable. I would not oppose Jtkiefer's proposed solution (listed above), specifically with respect to the one year voluntary ban from FPC and RFA pages. I am uncertain whether the 6 month ban on "generic" non-article/user pages is necessary, and do not consider it required for a reasonable solution. As Jt's objectionable behavior appears to have been limited to FPC and RFA pages, I have no problem with the punishment being confined to those pages, especially if he continues editing on a known account (User:Jtkiefer, for example, with no socks). Based on a brief check of Jt's additions to the article namespace, it does appear that his "problem" is limited to administrative tasks, and that he would probably be capable of making useful contributions to the 'pedia if they were limited to the article/user space. I maintain my position that his behavior with respect to seeking authority is absolutely unacceptable, but acknowledge that he has contributed outside of that capacity and should probably be allowed to continue to do so. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You're not being railroaded. You just don't want to deal with the consequences of your actions. But from my perspective you don't need to agree to any namespace bans as long as you agree to edit from one known account and to have that be enforced. You'd be free to e$it as you please and build back trust with the community. That seems like a reasonable solution to remove the problems but allow you to continue the good editing you do. - Taxman Talk 01:32, 1u August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fair to me, I'll only edit via this account without any namespace restrictions, though I think I'll for now just vote on FPC's and not close them, and stay as far away as possible from RFA for the most part. Jtkiefer 02:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok from me at least, but one account means one account — you have to disclose the other account(s) you've been editing under. Also, the no restrictions bit is subject to approval by others of course. - Taxman Talk 02:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
And therein lies the rub, the unfortunate side-effect of the arbcom rejecting the case is that means that anyone can reject this "solution" and block me in an instant and this is not binding in any way, shape, or form, beyond those of us involved in this thread or indeed really between you, me, and maybe Dante if he feels so inclined. Jtkiefer 04:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Lets get this straight, you were found using sockpuppets abusively, abusing your previous admin powers and you are now presented with two options (a) A community ban (b) And alternative which still has a risk of a community ban (though it since I have no reason to believe Taxman is not dealing with this honestly in which case consensus for the ban would not be met). I'm sure many editors wouldn't be given an option (b), yet this isn't good enough for you, as above you seem to want to avoid dealing with the consequences of your actions. I can't speak for anyone else but reading through this thread, this seems to wearing a bit thin and perhaps we should consider withdrawing option (b). --pgk(talk) 06:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Community ban isn't really on the table actually, since the above conversations show that there is strong dissent against a community ban, probably due to something your forgetting, like my 2 years of editing productively, since I am still convinced that I cannot and will not ever get a fair chance under this username anymore I will be invoking my m:Right to vanish and you will all have to trust me when I say that I will follow the guidelines laid out here in terms of FPC, one account, and RFA though I will not rule out doing any of them in the eventual future. I'd appreciate being left to my edits but if you really feel the need to continue this then I am as you so aptly keep reminding me, not in a position to argue about it. Jtkiefer talk 07:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It should also be noted that blocks are meant to be preventive and not punitive and treating my refusal to tell you what nick I am going to be using even though I have sworn to obey policy from now on as a blockable offense would be a big mistake and blatantly against blocking policy, as would assuming you have community consensus for a community block as there is not widespread support and I have apologized for and rectified all policy violations so there's no policy basis to block or ban me either. I hate to wikilawyer and usually avoid doing so but I just had to say that. I don't see how blocking me would be productive either and I suggest that we just drop this and get back to writing an encyclopedia which is what Wikipedia is really about. I will retain access to this account for a little while but won't use it other than to reply here or on my talk page if needed then I plan on scrambling the password and leaving it. Jtkiefer talk 08:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I am going to email taxman with the username of my new nick, after that I will leave it up to him how he uses that information and who he tells, I trust that he'll let a group of people he knows and trusts about it and will reveal who I am should I run for adminship. Other than that I will stick to staying away from closing anything or running for RFA for awhile and I hope that will be satisfactory to everyone. Unless anyone else has any other conditions for me to agree to as soon as I send the email off to Taxman I don't see why this wouldn't be resolved for now. Jtkiefer talk 08:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This shounds mostly workable to me. Someone who knows Jt's new identity just needs to check from time to time to verify that he's keeping to his new promises. Also, obviously, if Jt does decide to run for Admin at some point, I believe that full disclosure would be appropriate AT THAT TIME. Other than that, I am content to let Jt vanish into the mists of anonymity providing he keeps his promises. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
If jtkiefer follows through, that suits me. --Tony Sidaway 23:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
So far nothing. - Taxman Talk 01:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Resent using the email user function which should work. Jtkiefer talk 05:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This compromise keeps changing. Yesterday Jtkiefer stated he'd stick with that account, and not use any sock puppets. I'd object to him using a sockpuppet. Watching his edits should be the responsibility of the whole community, not one hand-picked admin. I don't see any reason why he should have a hidden identity. -Will Beback 03:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It will not just be one admin, he will tell people he trusts, including probably the arbcom and a couple bureaucrats and maybe even a few other admins he trusts, I honestly do not know nor should I probably know who knows but I trust taxman to pick good people, and if he wants to tell you who he has picked then you can ask him about it. Jtkiefer talk 05:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't get it. How is "don't run sockpuppets and you can edit in any namespace" a compromise? As far as I'm aware every Wikipedian is operating under exactly these constraints.
Meanwhile, Jtkiefer asserts that he has a new account; so why hasn't the Jtkiefer account hasn't been blocked indefinitely?
Snottygobble 04:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think they are waiting for this thread to die, since blocking me would prevent me from responding here, once this thread is done by all means please block User:Jtkiefer indefinitely. Jtkiefer talk 05:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd much rather we just RfCU again and block any other socks. JoshuaZ 04:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not see how there would be any basis for that, I have dealt with all policy violations including allowing myself to be monitored and the connection to be revealed should I go up for adminship again, I have also abandoned Jtkiefer except for user, user talk, and the noticeboards the former would be available to any blocked or banned editor and the latter will stop as soon as this thread ends, I have also fully rectified my mistakes as best as possible and have apologized for violating policy, I do not see why there would be a benefit to blocking my account. Jtkiefer talk 05:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You've seriously violated the community trust in the past, going so far as nominating sock puppets for Admin. I don't see any good reason why you can't continue contributing under you existing user name, or have a conventional name change. If I understand your words correctly, you are using a sock puppet currently. Is that true? -Will Beback 05:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
No, the only page I am editing with this account that I could not contribute to were this account blocked is this one so I hardly consider that sockpuppetry, this account is totally inactive except for replying on this page and replying to anything on my talk page. If you consider me being able to reply to any comments, questions, or accusations on this page sockpuppetry then I guess I would fall under that definition this is no different than a ban on an editor editing anything except for user talk and his/her arbcom case except in this case it's not an arbcom page it's this set of threads and subthreads in AN/I. Jtkiefer talk 07:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me rephrase the question: How many accounts are you now using, and what are their names? -Will Beback 09:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Jtkiefer is now indefinitely blocked as I know the identity of the other account and so do other trusted editors. The difference here Will, is Jtkiefer now can't use any other accounts than the one new account he created. Not even alternate accounts as permitted by WP:SOCK. And there is a right to vanish so he can stop editing from Jtkiefer and start over as long as he sticks to one account and that is monitored, which he will be. So it's a one account limitation or it will revert to a community ban and if he applies for any position of trust, the situation will be disclosed. To me it seems like a good compromise to eliminate problem behavior, but let him keep making good contributions. - Taxman Talk 14:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good solution, though it might be prudent to use CheckUser periodically to make sure no account other than the known one is being used. Given his past history with socks, I don't think AGF would prevent this. Aren't I Obscure? 14:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that Taxman has committed to taking responsibility for Jtkiefer. I expect that he will take that responsibility seriously, and realize that it is a long-term commitment. If he finds he is no longer interested, or becomes inactive on Wikipedia, it should be delegated to another equally responsible, editor. I still see no reason why Jtkiefer's new identity should be secret, but I'll defer to his new mentor. -Will Beback 23:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's now in good hands and that we should move on. Metamagician3000 07:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] User:Oiboy77 and blatant personal vandalism

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

Personally, I am rather offended by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel&diff=next&oldid=69831964 and I believe looking at his contributions (rogue admins, his first edits, and other such loverly stuff) he is deserving of sanction. Although I believe I am within my rights to levy it, as the target of his nonsense, I feel that I must first take special pains to ensure that any actions are done according to Wiki guidelines and that there is no opening for claims of admin abuse, although I am not abdicating the right to apply the appropriate wikipedia procedure. Thank you. -- Avi 18:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I must response to this claim, as I believe Avi has a personal vendetta against me. In the past he has blocked me for archiving my talk page, claiming I deleted it. He later unblocked me at the request of another admin. Posting an apology on my talk page. I urge you to look at the topic of the edits posted my him and the others here who will facilitate this pile on. It will be the usual suspects. Because two people have different opinions on topics one is NOT a vandal. See [[51]].--Oiboy77 18:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It's called an {{unsigned}} template. What is so incredulous is that IP is registered to London, England, and it is a well known fact that I am in the US. Oiboy, you are either completely clueless about wikipedia templates or, and I am afraid this is more likely, based on your knowledge of vandalism templates and RfAr's, guilty of attempting to pass someone else's comments off as mine. Which is contemptible. -- Avi 23:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please also see: [[52]]--Oiboy77 18:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC) And this [[53]]--Oiboy77 18:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC) And this [[54]]--Oiboy77 18:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And most importantly [[55]]

I'm sure the usual suspects will respont with slanderous statements about me. (Start the pile-on)--Oiboy77 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Also see my talk page. Also see this on his own talk page. --Daniel575 19:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Users here are upset that Oiboy has added items to Human rights in Israel. To the Pro-Israel faction this makes him an anti-Semite that 'besmirches the country', which has been the basis of many false and defamatory accusations against him. I think it is highly inappropriate to drag a personal disagreement like this onto the admin board. Sarastro777 20:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, and we are here to write encyclopedic articles from a neutral poinit of view, so just your comment of 'Pro-Israel faction' is ridiculous. Cut the crap. Do not put words in my/others mouth. I have not even once insinuated anything like that. This does not involve any 'false or defamatory accusation'. Oiboy77 committed an intentional and in my eyes quite serious act of vandalism. Pure, plain vandalism. There is no justification. --Daniel575 21:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


As an outsider looking at this I also agree with this interpretation. I don't see anything overly like vandalism being done by Oiboy77. Also I would question users he's in obvious conflict with placing, "warnings" on his talk page. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's quite simple. Did you click that link I brought? That is not my IP, never was my IP, and anyone who knows my editing style knows I could never have posted that, which was why two editors, with whom I do not always agree, pointed that out in a matter of minutes. To try and frame someone for another's edits is contemptible. -- Avi 20:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

JohnnyBGood, did you actually look at what happened? Looks to me like you didn't. --Daniel575 21:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually I did. I just didn't realize that IP didn't belong to whom it had been tagged with. A warning is definitely in order here. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So, it looks like Oiboy77 committed a forgery on an article's talk page by making it look as if a warning or comment came from an admin it did not come from. Is that the truth of it? Right now, it's looking like mischief rather than an honest mistake. That certainly would merit a warning, but I think we need some kind of explanation here. I suggest that Oiboy77 explain himself or an adverse inference is going to be drawn. Metamagician3000 23:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Now if you check his talk page, you will see that this is not the first time he has broken the rules. Also his total denial of anything having happened is very weird. See User talk:Daniel575#Tagging_an_edit_Vandalism my talk page. The guy is as innocent as a bank robber in plain daylight with 1000 witnesses. Yet he accuses me, who discovered it first (as did User:okedem) of 'playing a silly little game' and denies that it is vandalism. Well, tell you what, it is whim who is playing a silly little game and committed vandalism here. A very childish form, which makes it even worse than gross vandalism, in my eyes. This was done merely to annoy, to harass another user. There is no explanation possible, the only thing fitting is an apology by Oiboy77 and a promise to never, ever, do this again. --Daniel575 01:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to give him a 1 week block. This is beyond a joke. I have been giving people blocks for fraudulently switching "votes" on RfA, AfD and also faking signatures. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Blocks are preventive rather than punitive measures used to prevent damage to Wikipedia...normally lasts 24 hours...and in most instances a block can be lifted if the editor agrees to stop the damaging behavior." Way to overreact. Obviously from this board, it seems preventing damage to Wikipedia is the last thing on the agenda. 68.6.254.16 04:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also true that users can find themselves exhausting the community's patience. That is starting to happen here. Metamagician3000 11:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] WP:Pain again

I (AYArktos (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)) seem to have once again failed in using my admin tools, such that it has been recommended that I should resign from adminship if the best you can do is stick up for bullying. Firstly, can someone else see if they can help LGagnon out - see his complaints at WP:PAIN. I would happily receive feedback as to what I should do differently or whether I should resign. As a volunteer I am getting a bit sick of the attacks.--A Y Arktos\talk 01:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't resign. If you think you might be using the tools incorrectly, then be more conservative with them until you gain more confidence. From my 15-second glance at that PAIN page, I'd have advised telling both of those guys to cool down, but you did ok. If you get stressed out dealing with that kind of dispute, then just stay away from them and work on other areas. Phr (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Do not resign. Do not even think about it, AY. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the messages of support. The issue was of course not using the tools rather than using the tools incorrectly. I will be staying away from PAIN and other incidents for the time being.--Arktos talk 12:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LGagnon removing Rand philosopher references

User:LGagnon, as seen from his contributions [56] is combing through every Wikipedia article he can find to remove any implication that Ayn Rand was a philosopher or that her belief system constituted a "philosophy". This is despite that fact being meticulously documented by reliable sources. Although this may appear like a mere content dispute warranting dispute resolution, it is not. The matter is being discussed here [57], and the consensus is leaning heavily agains the change LGagnon wants to make. He is being extremely disruptive to make such extensive, difficult-to-reverse changes to numerous articles based on what he wants to be the policy. I ask that you put a stop to this until the consensus can be reached. MrVoluntarist 02:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Some examples before they are hard to find: [58] [59] [60] [61] MrVoluntarist 02:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice try with the strawman. The dispute is actually leaning towards my argument, not away from it. There is not enough proof that Rand is a philosopher, as only a very rare few academics back this claim. Rand-related articles are currently skewed in her and her followers favor, making all of them POV. What I am doing is required in order for these articles to maintain a NPOV status. There are very, very few academic sources that call Rand a philosopher, and most "reliable sources" given in articles come from Rand's supporters, almost all of whom have no academic credibility. Consensus isn't needed when the facts say that calling Rand a philosopher is POV. -- LGagnon 02:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Just because you disagree with a claim, does not make it a strawman. Let's use terms properly if we could. Someone doesn't have to be "academia approved" to be a philosopher. Please. We've gone over this for months and months. No one is going to be unduly influenced in favor of Rand by seeing that she's a philosopher. That's just insane. MrVoluntarist 02:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I meant the entirity of your argument is one. You are trying to make a simple content dispute look like a holy war.
And again you assume your statements are understood to be true instead of backing them with evidence. Yes, a lot of people back Rand because she claims to be a philosopher; in fact, most Randists do. It's not until they learn that they are dealing with a pseudo-philosopher that they stop backing her ideology.
And you are trying to keep an academic term in articles involving an anti-academic and her pseudoscientific ideology. Her work is only "philosophy" in the sense that intelligent design is a "theory". It only counts as such in the vernacular sense, which a responsible and accurate encyclopedia should not be using to describe a pseudo-science. -- LGagnon 03:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
As you've been counselled by multiple editors, try dispute resolution. There's no administrative action that will help out here. Shell babelfish 03:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple of people - one of them was Agent Cooper were doing what looked like some reasonable informal mediation on the Rand articles. What happened? Mediation still seems like the way to go. As I said when I closed the AfD on the "Responses" article, it's going to be difficult, and people should be patient as they work through it. There's not much we can do as admins unless someone's conduct goes over the line. Metamagician3000 09:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I think it's very different to state that someone is a philsopher and to state that one agrees with the stated philosophy. Being a philosopher, IMO, is to concern oneself with a certain broad sphere of ideas -- IMO it's safe to call her a philosopher but still disagree with her over all the philosophical stands she takes. --Improv 21:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of WP:TROLL, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by Cyde

Here's the diff[62]. He blocked me for apparently the same thing a few days ago, i'm awaiting his block, unless there's a double standard around here. Attic Owl 02:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I hope it isn't, but this sounds a bit like Karmafist to me. Karmafist was bragging on WR about how his socks voted for Phaedriel, which this user did. I hope its just a coincidence that they both live in New Hampshire. pschemp | talk 02:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Also Kamafist started List of Bountyheads in Cowboy Bebop, featured on User:Attic Owl. Sigh. And here I was hoping his news about the socks was a disinformation campaign designed to have us paranoid and wasting our time. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Everyone and their great-aunt voted for Phaedriel, didn't they? Powers T 20:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to put my two cents in here real quick. Attic Owl has behaved in an uncivil manner towards Kelly Martin and Cyde Weys. Now Cyde did in my opinion make a boardline uncivil comment on A.O.s page about becoming a member of Esperanza. Cyde Weys was in my opinion as a Non SYSOP to be justifed in 48 hour block. A.O. has shown that he doesn't understand Wiki Policy. How ever if this member is a possible sock then can we run a check user? Æon Insane Ward 02:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Cyde's comment, while I found it funny, probably did go a bit too far (but if this is indeed a sockpuppet, I couldn't really care less). Still I don't see the point of a block except to slap him on the wrist... not really what blocks are for. --W.marsh 02:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Tada, and we just bagged one of those sockpuppet accounts that Karmafist claims was "ready to go up for adminship". LOL. He's not going to have too much success with these if he can't resist slandering Kelly Martin and me. --Cyde Weys 02:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Incivility that is provoked is understandable. Occasional incivility is forgivable. Constant incivility is the only thing worth bothering this noticeboard with, and I don't see that here. If Cyde's occasional snarkiness has contributed here to outing a chronically disruptive sockpuppeteer, then that is a Good Thing. FeloniousMonk 02:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note I have informed Natalya about Attic Owl so she can take action where Esperanza is cocerned )Since he just became a member of EA) Just want to let you all know. Æon Insane Ward 02:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

All the proof you need. Karmafist gave himself away too easily on this account. --Cyde Weys 03:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not proof, or at least it's not all the proof I need. But I do think this is looking like an obvious enough sock, yes. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Think it's a coincidence that as soon you said it was an obvious sock you got this little present on your userpage? --Cyde Weys 03:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually I do. I'm chasing EddieSegoura/The Exicornt vandal around at the moment, that's exactly his style, and and... trying... trying... nyyyyyyyrghhhhhhh ah I can't stretch my ABF far enough right now to believe Karmafist is him. Although it is tempting, given the timing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
We've already seen interesting allegations of Karmafist being or being associated with the airport vandal. It wouldn't surprised me if there was a vandal cabal somewhere out there. --Cyde Weys 03:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh silly me. I thought that that's what WR was. pschemp | talk 03:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
WR actually does seem to have a useful purpose. It's where the trolls go to troll and attack each other. Today's big blowup thread is especially fun for me ... it's like watching Hitler's car wreck in slow motion, you know exactly what's about to happen and you wouldn't want to stop it anyway. --Cyde Weys 04:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
WR? huh? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
WR = Wikipedia Review. I'm not linking them; they're easy enough to Google, if you must. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

With regards to "it's ok to be rude to socks" I'd suggest that it's never ok to be rude. Do we so easily forget TheChief? How he was roundly derided as an obvious abusive secondaccount , subjected to a bollocking, and then "Oops not a sock after all!" - brenneman {L} 04:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree quite strongly. Being rude to a sock only encourages the creation of more disruptive attack socks. 71.57.164.200 04:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:WR redirects to Wikipedia:WikiReader, but somehow, I don't think that's what they are referring to. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

They mean Wikipedia Review, which you will have to Google for. Ashibaka tock 05:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to state that the creation of more disruptive attack socks would not necessarily be a bad thing, as they are amusing and would just be blocked, anyway. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are amusing but you also have to deal with them. Better to have fewer disruptive sockpuppets and more people working on articles. Ashibaka tock 05:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur in the block. Mackensen (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked three more sockpuppets; all of these three got a confirmed CheckUser hit with each other and Attic Owl. Note that all three were used to "vote" on Pmanderson's RFA.

  1. Super King (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  2. Carmen Chamelion (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  3. User To Be Named Later (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

--Cyde Weys 03:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed some multiple-voting from these accounts on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin2. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Normally I would say go ahead and strike them with a note. However, because Cyde is something of a lightning rod, and I can not find an on-wiki source for the checkuser report, you might want to wait for public conformation from one of the checkusers. I think I know who ran the check, but it would help if Cyde can point to an on-wiki diff, or if one of the checkusers could sign off on this, just to dot the i's properly. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impending edit war on anarchism

Most of us, including some of the most partisan among us, have been engaged in fruitful discussion, compromise, and negotiation regarding anarchism and its related pages. That'sHot, a new user (created a little over a week ago -- possibly a sock puppet), arrived out of nowhere and began making significant and controversial changes to the article, ignoring the ongoing discussion. As might be expected, the focus has been removed from the dialogue, and is now almost entirely centered on That's Hot's changes. There have already been numerous back-and-forth reverts and many of the cooler-headed editors are absent. It would be very helpful if a neutral person, or someone with a cool head, might hang around for a bit and monitor things or offer a few mediating words. Dropping a note on That'sHot's talk page might help, too. Thanks to anybody who sticks their hand into this fire. --AaronS 17:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This user is almost certainly a sockpuppet. The name and subjects of interest really ring a bell... --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm taking a break from these articles. There is far too much sock puppetry going on. Those involved might find it amusing, for whatever reason, or might believe that they're spreading the Truth, but it's actually quite silly. --AaronS 19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Is this another Maggie? If so, just post that it's a suspect, and there are quite a few folks here who have an interest in investigating and ending those puppies. Geogre 02:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The first report here (no I'm not going to pry it out of the archives) was that That'sHot might be RJII. Thatcher131 (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] El_C blocked me

El_C blocked me, Moe Epsilon for an uncivil comment I made. Not really sure what comment was uncivil really. But I'm sure you're not supposed to block someone you're in a dispute with. See his talk page. 216.78.95.172 18:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no indication that El_C explained the block on your talk page, and there's no diff in the block log to explain it either. So I'm inclined to call this an unjustified block, but I don't really know the circumstances. Surely we don't block users with no explanation? Friday (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
There's now an explanation on the talk page. Friday (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Meaning, the original explanation was immedately (albeit innocently) archived by Moe Epsilon. El_C 19:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Moe, following an edit like this, why exactly do you care if you are unblocked or not? It seems like you're leaving Wikipedia anyway ... Cyde Weys 18:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's because Moe wanted a spotless block log. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Once a block is done it cannot ever be undone, at least in terms of the block log. This explanation doesn't make sense. --Cyde Weys 18:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it was meant mostly as a joke. Accounts with spotless block logs go for more on eBay, you know. --W.marsh 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I think my account's block log makes it more valuable, not less. --Cyde Weys 18:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
W.marsh, if you're referring to me, no, I actually wasn't joking. At one point, Moe Epsilon said something on his user page to the nature of (and I'm paraphrasing from what I remember) "I'm leaving, but I'm not going to do anything to get myself blocked because I want a spotless block log." --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh okay, I stand corrected. Sadly... --W.marsh 18:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I also seem to think there is a certain policy that prohbits using sockpuppets to get around a block? Just e-mail the blocking admin instead, it is between you and him, not us. --Pilotguy (roger that) 18:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have been mistaken Pilotguy, I was informing a more broad area of Wikipedia to inform you of my block to see it was justified or not. Wasn't attempting to break WP:SOCK, but I don't think an IP is really you're sockpuppet, no? And no Cyde, I'm not leaving Wikipedia, blanking a sub-page doesn't always mean that. Let's just drop this since I'm unblocked now.. — Moe Epsilon 19:07 August 16 '06
First, block evasion is not permitted. Still, I'll let the unblock stay, I suppose. Moe appeared to need a cooldown following my removal (and his subsequent reversion) of what I felt constituted an attack page, entitled "Users who I lost my respect for...". El_C 19:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Now there's a hitlist worth being on. Mackensen (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Who said it was a "hitlist"? That was a pretty unrationale response. — Moe Epsilon 01:19 August 17 '06
I said it. I suppose I forgot the "s." Mackensen (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's leave it at that. People have survived unscathed for worse. I really don't think he's been the worst offender in the events of recent days, and he has a good record here. I hope he'll realise soon why the actions that have upset him were necessary, even if not handled in the best possible way or by the most appropriate possible people. I'm being deliberately obscure for good reason - no need to revitalise discussion of the situation that led to it all. Metamagician3000 22:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree with MetaMagic3K, which is why that I did not —and will not— even hint on that event. El_C 22:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse of WP:PAIN

jayjg (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) placed a notice on WP:PAIN claiming that I had called another user a dick which I did not. I simply asked the user to stop wikistalking me, harrassing me and being a dick. Jayjg was previously in a dispute with me and this is clearly abuse of reporting boards because of some grudge of his. He obviously finds the situation amusing judging by all his smilies. Could someone remove the report, remove the subsequent warning I received because of it, and remind jayjg not to abuse reporting tools? Paul Cyr 18:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll put a warning on my Talk: page, and insist that I not remove it; will that do? Jayjg (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Given the fact that you have no problem in abusing reporting boards, I imagine you would also find warning yourself equally amusing. Paul Cyr 18:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Your complaint here strikes me as a case of WP:POINT. Who is abusing reporting boards again? FeloniousMonk 18:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I do find the irony of his making this post on this board amusing, but perhaps the irony escapes him. Jayjg (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Mine or his? Paul Cyr 18:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yours. FeloniousMonk 18:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm more concerned about the poor WP:PAIN board; now that it has been "abused", how will it recover without proper therapy? Do you know of any support groups that can help? Jayjg (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
How does me asking for a review on AN/I disrupt Wikipedia? Paul Cyr 19:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a schoolyard, guys. Now shake hands and resume writing articles :) dab (ᛏ) 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Paul, is this you abusing a reporting board to accuse Jay of abusing reporting boards, just as you made a personal attack while warning about personal attacks, and indeed removed a report [63] while warning about removing reports??? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Since when is asking someone to stop being a dick a personal attack? Is asking someone to stop being confrontational a personal attack? If it is then why does WP:DICK exist at all? Obviously since refering to it is a personal attack. And I removed the report because it was taken here; notice the edit summary and how many times I've done the same for other reports that are taken to AN/I? I never warned about removing reports, I warned about removing warnings. Paul Cyr 19:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
What is all this bickering? Are we forgetting the bigger issue here? WP:PAIN has been abused!!! WP:PAIN is in pain!! Can no-one provide succor? "Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then has not the health of the reporting board been restored?" Jayjg (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice smart ass remark. Obviously violates WP:CIVIL, but hey, your an admin, so it's ok and I'm sure you'll be given a barnstar for your wittiness. Paul Cyr 19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I also find it amazing that we warn users without a second thought, but the past two times I've warned an admin, a big blow up occurs. No wonder I've seen so many complaints about admins being able to do what ever they want. From what I've seen, argue with an admin about content and it's all diplomatic and attempts at a peaceful resolution. However warn them about conduct and it turns into a schoolyard (as Dbachmann said). To be honest, this is nothing more than bullying as shown by Jayjg's smart ass remarks. Even if I haven't been that diplomatic, the admins here have definately not made any attempts to resolve the situation, but instead keep trying to make their point without budging. Paul Cyr 19:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, telling someone to stop "being a dick" (whether this links to WP:DICK or not) is a kind of personal attack, and at the least is uncivil. Linking to project pages doesn't mean you don't have to be polite. I think, given that Jayjg is an admin, and could have taken action himself, reporting you to the noticeboard is totally appropriate: that means that someone ELSE should be the one to decide on any action. It's even a better idea than warning you himself, which would escalate your conflict, whatever it is. Mangojuicetalk 19:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep it was probably a bit incivil, but hey, it's ok for the admin I was talking to to keep harrassing me after telling me to stop harrassing him, it's ok for Jayjg to make smart ass comments, it's ok for a user who has been given barnstars by other admins and thanked for his work to be called a troll by another admin, why? Because they're admins, and they are breaking policies and bullying for the good of Wikipedia! Paul Cyr 19:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You would do well to stop making false accusations about me and twisting the facts of the matter. You would also do well to remember that the purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopaedia. We need people to write an encyclopaedia. We don't need professional scolds. Try contributing to the encyclopaedia for a while instead of filing spurious complaints against people. Also, if you stopped doing exactly what you scold people for doing, people might take you seriously. Instead, you engage in personal attacks while issuing NPA warnings, you complain when people archive their talk pages without it being to your liking, but delete warning on your talk page (while calling people liars), you complain about people deleting complaints from WP:PAIN, but you delete complaints against you, you engage in bullying, and complain that people are bullying you. Try making edits to the Main namespace, and people might take you seriously. Whatever you do, at the very least try not doing what you scold other people about. Guettarda
The hilarious part is that everything you just said (aside from number of contributions) applies to you to. Paul Cyr 20:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

<insert loud whistle sound here>Personal Foul on the Offense number 21, Personal Foul on the Defense number 72, Offsetting penalties, replay second down. OK, everyone went a tad overboard here. Y'all are among the more respected editors and admins here; perhaps we can curtail the wisecracks and digs on both sides and get back to our lives work of wasting inordinate amounts of time, cough cough, I mean building an encyclopædia? Image:Smile.gif -- Avi 19:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when Jayjg starting making blatently smart ass remarks that would only make the situation worse, and no one said anything, I'm starting to believe the people who claimed that admins get away with anything. Paul Cyr 19:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually there appears to be a pattern of abuse here. Initially I thought he just had a meltdown because I dared to question his authority, but there really seems to be a pattern of disruption on this part of this editor. Guettarda 19:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
FYI: Guettarda was the first admin who I warned for personal attacks. His response: make a personal attack against me while telling me to stop harrassing him. Can we say hypocrisy? Paul Cyr 19:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps certain concepts of what constitutes a "personal attack" are a bit too broad, no? Maybe we should just let some of this roll off our backs without climbing the Washington Monument dressed as the Green Hornet? Right?!? WP:BJAODN this thread, or better yet, just archive it out as a distraction. Jim (the editor sometimes known as JChap) T / E 20:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

AGREED. Obviously this isn't going anywhere. There's no point in discussing it further. Paul Cyr 21:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Something I just found out. I recently (today actually) found a link to a site called The Wikipedia Review. From what I've seen, the site's objective is to criticise Wikipedia. To me, that in itself makes me take it with a heavy grain of salt. However from reading some parts on that site and some of the links on there to certian "events" on Wikipedia, apparently Slim, Felonious and Jayjg have been heavily critisised for certain actions (some of the links to Wikipedia were rather interesting), so whether or not most of the site is trash, some of the stuff it brings up gives me pause. In fact it's actually helping restore my faith in WP admins, as now I know what happened above is apparently not an isolated incident, that the admins involved have some sort of connection with each other, and the users here who were not mentioned on The Wikipedia Review, are ones who have tried pacify this situation. Paul Cyr 00:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"What happened above" is no big deal. Just chill. As for the "Wikipedia Review," they're users that WP has banned, but they just can't let go: it's the Denise Show of cyberspace. JChap2007 00:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MIT Press linkspam

MITpress (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) has been adding well-formed and relevant citations to the References sections of numerous articles, but it appears that the cited publications were not actually used in the creation of the articles, but rather are simply related to the same topic. Normally, I'd revert, warn, and let it go, but a) there's a lot to revert, b) the citations are indeed well-formed and relevant, and c) it's possible this is an official MIT Press action. I wanted to toss it up to admins to see what the best course of action is, and maybe get some help with the reversions. Powers T 19:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think (unfortunately) keeping the edits has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, so let the editors of the articles in question decide; it'll get sorted out eventually. In the meantime, find some examples of the worst links and present them to that user and explain what's wrong with them; explain the spam policy, and if they don't respond and continue, they can be blocked. Mangojuicetalk 19:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That's interesting. I'm not sure I'd consider it spam, exactly. Generally "Further Reading"-type entries are useful in an article, even if they don't provide reference for the text. It bears watching closely to make sure none of the books are too tangental, but if they're on-topic I'd generally say to keep 'em. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The username is a volation since it is the name of a company. They need to change it. pschemp | talk 20:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have already asked them to. Jkelly 21:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
If they are topical, I'd make a bibliography or further reading section. I think it adds a lot if we can give readers places to go for more information, especially to hard copy. Tom Harrison Talk 02:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Tom Harrison and others: the problem, such as it is, is that the publications are placed in "References," when they weren't cited, rather than "Bibliography." It's probably good to ask the user to either actually insert citations and add to references or add only to a Bibliography. Personally, I wish we did employ bibliographies more, as I may only cite a couple of omnibus publications in an article but wish that readers were aware of other cool articles and sources. We have no problem with uncited "External links," so we ought to approach "Bibliography" the same way. Geogre 02:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morton Devonshire

Would someone be willing to review Morton Devonshire? His mainspace editing history appears to be very disruptive, with generally unexplained mass rv's on hot-button topics. Just now, he Rv'd with no explanation four edits by three users here.

He also appears to be maintaining an inflammatory listing of users here, which I can't see any reason for except to cause a disruption. His main user page as well has additional material which can be seen as highly disruptive. He's been sporadically vandalizing other pages, as seen here: [64], [65], [66]. I have placed a warning on the user's talk page. rootology (T) 20:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: not an admin) The listing of users probably falls within the guidelines of community consensus, for some reason. Kelly Martin has maintained lists of editors that have butted heads with her in the past, and after some contention and ugly MfD debates she seems to have been allowed to keep them. The reverts without explanation, however, are definitely worrisome, and I would hope an admin would take a look at them. The user definitely does adopt a very hostile and aggressive style of editing. However, bear in mind that you're also not doing right by Wikipedia policy - by describing the edits as vandalism you're not assuming good faith; vandalism is a very serious charge to level on Wikipedia. Captainktainer * Talk 21:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The undoing of three peoples' good faith work without comment (a trend for this user), I'll leave then to others to debate. However, redirecting a page to "Jackass"[67], adding insulting info to a biographical article[68], and leaving what appears to be a personal insult on an editor's page [69] I believe are vandalism. I didn't search through all his edits, just the recent stuff--there may be more. His talk page has many warnings from other editors in regards to personal attacks and vandalism. rootology (T) 22:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll ask him to stop being naughty.--MONGO 22:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I have left a polite warning on his talk page. Andrew Levine 22:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you (to both). rootology (T) 22:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think his "This user mocks truthiness, and Fuckwit Wikipedians who use the term" userbox crosses the WP:CIVIL line Pete.Hurd 02:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • It's abrasive, but I'm not sure it's uncivil. Are there many people who use "truthiness" to be offended? It seems like Pop Rocks at this point, the gushing over that term. Geogre 02:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd be interested to learn which "Truthiness and Fuckwit Wikipedians" self identify with that user box to be offended. --Tbeatty 03:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, that would be me... --Striver 20:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Captainktainer, I must disagree. - brenneman {L} 03:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Morton Devonshire edits controversial subjects but he is not disruptive. He passionately fights POV pushing articles (like the one cited by rootology) and supporters of the article disagree. There maybe content disagreements but there is no actionable item for administrators. rootology needs to take content disputes to mediators or the Arbitration Committee, but Morton Devonshire is just making sure that articles are sourced properly and have a neutral POV. In the case that rootology listed, it appears that rootology had rv'd a completely different editors version. Not sure how he can complain that multiple editors versions' are disruptive when the objective is consensus. --Tbeatty 03:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay Gents, I promise to tone down the mockery -- except for Truthiness -- if you can't mock Truthiness, a term that Stephen Colbert uses to mock people who use the term, then what can you mock? Get real. "Truthiness" As far as not editing articles, sorry, I won't agree to do that. I know certain editors would like me to go away, but that isn't going to happen. I will agree, however, to play nice. Pile on should you wish. Cheers. Peace out. Tschüss! Morton devonshire 04:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how using the word "Fuckwit" contributes to an encyclopedia, or the intellectual environment. It's just a symptom of how Wikipedia is more of a social-networking usenet experience than writing for a real encylopedia, there's a lot more childish behaviour and posturing. Pete.Hurd 04:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Fuckwit had it's own page. That's the "truthiness" of it. --Tbeatty 06:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not making fun of "truthiness" that's inappropriate. It's calling other Wikipedians "fuckwits." --Unsigned comment by User:Andrew Levine
Or anyone, I don't have to insult an identifiable wikipedian before I violate the principle that insulting language and behavior doesn't belong on WP. Pete.Hurd 20:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, that goes without saying. Andrew Levine 20:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't refer to Wikipedians when I use that term. I mock persons outside of Wikipedia who use that term. Truthiness is by its very nature a term of mockery -- or don't you know the genesis of the term through Colbert's work? Colbert is a comedian by the way. And Rootology, who brought this complaint, has been banned forever. Morton devonshire 06:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jasper23 (talk)

After being warned repeatedly, this user has continued to remove warning templates from his page, including a personal attack message. I would like to request a temporary block for the user. Thank you. American Patriot 1776 01:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I myself am not an admin, so I can't do much, but I will recommend that simple cases of vandalism like these would be better reported at WP:AIV. Thanks. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Simple cases of vandalism? Did you look up the supposed personal attack, and the exchange between the users...? It's not vandalism for a good-faith editor to remove dubious warnings. My suggestion is that American Patriot 1776 stop pestering and threatening Jasper23 on his talkpage. Right now, or you may get blocked for harassment. Bishonen | talk 01:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC).
Ooh. Sorry, my mistake. Didn't see that. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes, a closer look at said AfD discussion would reveal Jasper not making personal attacks, and American Patriot harassing him about removing an invalid warning. Never mind, do not go to AIV, do not collect $200. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
And I would ask that you, sir, assume good faith and not to threaten me again. In my opinion, this edit qualfies as a personal attack and this edit qualifies as page blanking vandalism. In addition, blocking policy states that making deliberatly misleading edits (i.e. removing legitimate warnings from your talk page) is disruption. Should you wish to challenge that, fine, go try and change Wikipedia policy if you think that it will help the project. But do not threaten me, or Wildnox ([70] again without basis. American Patriot 1776 01:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Shows how observant I am...;) WTF, Bishonen? Looks legit to me... --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Jasper23 addressed that remark on his talk page. [71] Anchoress 02:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Still, no reason to blank his whole talk page... --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 02:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The edit you refer to does not qualify as a personal attack, American Patriot, and as you must be aware, the user himself regretted the strong wording and removed it. (Thanks, Anchoress, yes, exactly.) Your warning was illegitimate and self-interested. Your edit warring to keep it on his page was harassment. Anyway, what is this vengeful activity for? If Jasper removes a warning, Jasper has seen it. That was what it was for, wasn't it? What more do you want? Thank you for posting on this page and making admins aware of what was going on. Now just stop. Mr Lefty, no, I appreciate your excellent intentions, but this is not a bona fide use of warning templates. Also it's the tired old assumption that using a template, per se, somehow means it's virtuous to edit war on another person's talkpage. Wrong. Maybe he shouldn't have done the blanking, but if you follow the whole dialogue, you can see that he's taking the warnings seriously and getting stressed out and frustrated, so I can't say I blame him. Anyway, it's his page, he can blank it--remember, it did not contain any legitimate warnings, or anything else that Wikipedia needs to force him to keep in view. Bishonen | talk 02:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC).

(deindent) I've just waded through the entire history of the Afd for Zapatista and the recent history of Jasper23's talk page. Note that the outburst on the AfD took place on 10 August -- that's a week ago, folks -- and the edit warring on Jasper's talk page has kept up since then. I don't have a problem with the initial NPA warning. Jasper23 knew his words were heated, and undid them. Warring to keep the warning tags - and then to keep the warning tags about removing the warning tags, etc, isn't right. My view, we should fight to keep tags only in the same cases where we're likely to report someone to WP:AIV. Then and only then is speed really an issue. In all other cases, any blocks to be issues need to be done with deliberation anyway; and that deliberation demands that the actual history of the event be investigated, not just what's on someone's talk page at the moment. So -- once it is clear that there isn't active vandalism in progress from an account, don't edit war over the tags. Yes, I know this doesn't mesh up with whatever the proposed policy de jour is. Let common sense rule. The goal is not to "bag" people, to get them in enough trouble to block. The goal is to help people, and build an encyclopedia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I apologize to everyone for my actions. American Patriot 1776 03:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
That's a nice resolution, thank you very much. I'll overlook your removal of my message from Jasper's talkpage, but I've reposted the link to this discussion thread for him. It's not to rub your nose in it. I just do think people should be told when their actions are subject to comment on a page they're unlikely to stumble on. Bishonen | talk 11:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC).

[edit] AOL trolling on Seth Ilys's talk page

A quick glance at the history of Seth Ilys's talk page will reveal an AOL user constantly asking Seth to guess what he stuck up his butt today. (Sound familiar?) Anyway, it'd be good if people could keep an eye on this page to deter further trolling. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 02:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Carrots? Do I win a prize? ;-) Bishonen | talk 02:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC).
His head? Is Seth on break? Geogre 02:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User evading Indef Block

Johnny Canuck (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) is quite clearly JohnnyCanuck (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) attempting to evade his recent indef block for sockpuppetry. His contribs say it all. A block would be appreciated, if just for username violation. -- pm_shef 02:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked. Thanks. -- pm_shef 03:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
He is a persistant puppeteer. I have blocked these two and a few others today. -- JamesTeterenko 04:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Db-bio}}

So who deleted this template and why? The only mention on nn-bio regarding a delete debate was "no concensus" and I just noticed a page I left it on its suddenly gone.--Crossmr 03:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the deletion log report: 03:23, 17 August 2006 Aguerriero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Template:Db-bio" (Does not assert significance or importance.). DVD+ R/W 03:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
It is back now. DVD+ R/W 03:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
A new admin saw the rose box on a page (the page being the tempalte itself) and thus blindly deleted it without taking a minute to wonder what was going on. -- Drini 03:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
If that's true then that's a really bad thing. We don't need admins who blindly delete things because they've been tagged without even checking the page history, or gosh, the page title. If admins were really to just serve as automatic deletion bots we'd give the delete button to all users. Instead, we give it to a select few who we believe are trustworthy enough (*ahem*) to make carefully considered and informed judgements rather than rushing into anything. --Cyde Weys 13:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I restored it, this is a case where reversing an admin action was kind of needed. An explanation from the admin would be nice, though Drini's explanation is quite possibly right. --W.marsh 04:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Ouch, if it's true. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-17 04:22Z
    • Just an accident I think. BTW, Titoxd, that was classic! -- Samir धर्म 05:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
          • That edit summary is classic 8-D -- Avi 20:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, yes it was an accident, and I apologize. I assure you that is is not a modus operandi for me and I will be triply careful not to let anything like that happen again. Interestingly enough, I also rear-ended someone on the first day I had my driver licence, but haven't been in an accident since. :) --Aguerriero (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to add a note of explanation, I am well aware that the box on that page did not signify that it should be deleted. I was using tabbed browsing last night in Windows IE7, which I never use. As I was deleting my last speedy page before logging off, the browser froze and then closed a tab that I thought was open (the tab containing the page I actually intended to delete). As I result, I simply clicked the wrong button and deleted the template page. Again, I apologize, and I have taken steps to make sure it never happens again; I simply will not be using IE7 or Windows period to edit. --Aguerriero (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Firefox is definitely better than IE, I'll give you that :-P Cyde Weys 18:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Andy's next move it to delete WP:ANI. FYI to all. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shotcaller8

This user will not stop adding extraneous, unnecessary images to the Layla El article. I request someone warn him or give him a temp. block for his actions, as he has been warned numerous times. Thank you. — Chad "1m" Mosher Email Talk Cont. 03:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal threat against my family

While on new pages patrol, I deleted Eric_the_camping_bot a few times, warned the creating user (User:Edgar789) to knock it off, then blocked him briefly for continuing to repost it. He created a sock (User:Horseskunk) and recreated it again. I blocked that account indef, then a few minutes later received the following email:

From: Nickpatience <nick_patience@hotmail.com> to Chairboy
the blocking of ericthecampingbot and nickpatience was invalid. if we are not unbanned in 20 minutes we will send samual l. jackson to your house to eat your children. if still you do not comply we will pursue leagal actions for the murder of your children.

This reads like a threat against my family, I'd like some suggestions on how best to deal with this. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd just ignore. Sounds like an idle threat. Expect that Edgar/Eric/Nick will get bored soon -- Samir धर्म 06:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Concur with Samir. I have indef blocked the user in question and warned him that should he persist, it is possible that his actions could result in his being investigated and reported to the police for making terroristic threats over the Internet - which is a federal crime in the United States. FCYTravis 06:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
For a threat to be a threat, the person must be able to, or believed to be possible of carrying out the act. I don't think he's going to send Samual L. Jackson to his house, and I don't think SLJ is a cannibal. Paul Cyr 06:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
No, a threat is a threat, whether you think it's realistic or not. I don't know where you'd get the idea that only credible threats are threats. - Nunh-huh 06:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you'll find that most legal jurisdictions to indeed distinguish between credible threats and "threats" that are plainly not meant to be taken seriously. The law relating to assault, etc., is pretty sophisticated. That said, I'm content with the handling to date. We're probably well rid of this person independently of the "threat". Metamagician3000 07:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
We are not a "legal jurisdiction", and the fact that some laws distinguish between types of threats does not make those threats non-threats, or the threat listed above any less of a threat. - Nunh-huh 15:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you just ignore him. A court would not never believe that you truly feared for you and your family's safety from that threat for one moment. Emailing him back will probably provoke him since he's probably an immature kid and see it as a challenge. If he continues to harass you further, then you can threaten to email his ISP and get the authorities involved. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  07:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

We've corresponded, and he apologized for the message. I don't think he thought it through, and we've discussed the importance of thinking these things out. He's a teenager, and we all did dumb things when we were teens. The important thing is whether we learned from 'em. I'm now confident that there was no real physical threat intended (unless he's a master bullshit artist) and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Consider the matter closed. For the folks that said "ignore it", a note, I've got children, and when you've got something that looks to be a threat against your actual, non-metaphorical children, it's a bit more serious than a casual "I'll hit you so hard your kids will be born dizzy". Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone says "I'm going to throw a bear on your head and eat your mother's lungs for supper" it isn't really a threat. But it is evidence that the "threatener" is not in exactly the right frame of mind to be working on an encyclopedia. --FOo 07:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I've protected the deleted page too, since it seems to have been re-created at least 7 times. For what it's worth, I think the original threat certainly warrants a block, especially since it's toward Chairboy's children. If the user had a complaint, there's any number of ways they could have dealt with it. Physically threatening someone's children is never okay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] inappropriate username

I am reporting the username "Nigga360" because I feel is it obscene and not appropriate for a username. Thanks. Wikipediarules2221 06:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-17 06:52Z
Usernames like that can be reported at WP:AIV. ;) --Andeh 09:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Webville

User has linkspammed links to his website, isurvived.org, which promotes a minority viewpoint on many Holocaust-related topics. He has made many unhelpful, bad-faith edits to Hiram Bingham IV, attempting to portray him in a negative light. He has reverted edits, which I had given reasoning for on the talk page without explanation several times. He has made zero contributions other than those trying to promote his website, a clear single-purpose account. I am perfectly willing to "clean up" his damage (remove isurvived.org links, revert his minority POV additions such as those at Hiram Bingham IV, and an already-reverted edit to Hiram Bingham III); however, I want to make sure that this is an appropriate course of action. I also am quite certain he will reinstate all the links afterward, so I do not think it will be enough. I brought attention to him earlier on the noticeboard, but the only response was an editor offering to remove his spammed links (although he did not), and I do not believe that will be enough anyway. -Elmer Clark 09:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Webville (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
Added to help track user.--Andeh 09:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The user has also engaged in some incivility, see [72] Aranherunar 12:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm keeping an eye on Bingham as well; someone else might want to look at it, as I've reverted it three times in the last few hours. It does just seem to be a case of insistently spamming his edits back onto the page; I'm not entirely sure if this is self-promotion or just a desire to say "nyah nyah not a hero nyah", but either way it's unhelpful. Shimgray | talk | 19:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked him after he dumped material back onto the page again. If someone could check this all looks above-board, I'd appreciate it... Shimgray | talk | 19:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed all his linkspammed links to isurvived.org. There are still a few links to the site that were previously added to other users; I went ahead and left those as they all appear just to link to specific documents or news stories that happen to be hosted there are were as far as I can tell added in good faith. -Elmer Clark 22:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Shanequinlan01 still uploading images with false copyright tags

Shanequinlan01 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). For example Image:0000120e0b2.jpg claims the GFDL when it quite plainly isn't. They have previously uploaded dozens of images with false copyright tags, all of which had to be deleted. This behaviour has continued despite innumerable talk page warnings, and even a 24-hour block [73]. The user has promised several times [74] [75] to desist with this behaviour, but these promises appear to have been made in bad faith. Can an administrator take a look and take the appropriate action? Thanks! Demiurge 12:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

See also Image:0000120NoelBrown.jpg, another obvious false license. Aranherunar 12:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've applied a 1-week block on the user. If they do it again, we should probably block them for good. --Improv 12:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deskana should be Desysopped

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

Reasons:

  • Unfair blocking of harmless accounts that never made any vandalistic edits.
  • Blocked every user that was friends of another blocked/vandalistic user, unfairly judging it was a sockpuppet.
  • Never made any really helpful edits to wikipedia except for Star Wars and other childish subjects
  • Judging by his interests, is immature, and not what wikipedia needs as an administrator.
  • Only submitter of request for check user votes on various pages.

Those are only some of the many reasons I have. If you would like, you can discuss it on my talk page.Luis 13:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Fat Lui

Ain't gonna happen here. If you're really serious, you need to start by filing a request for comment. Take your time, be careful and deliberate, avoid ranting. If there is a consensus there, the arbitration committee would be the next step. Thatcher131 (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
And I suggest that you start by discussing any examples of the first two bullets with Deskana himself. Your only edits to his talk page seem friendly and unrelated. ×Meegs 13:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The other thing I noticed is that your account is only 7 days old or so, and there may be things about Deskana's action which seem wrong or unusual to a new user but which in fact are quite ordinary. So definitely try talking to him first. Regarding points 3 and 4, Deskana was promoted in May after a discussion in which 54 users approved of him being granted adminship and only 2 opposed, so the wikipedia community has already decided that those aren't important considerations. Thatcher131 (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if someone's account got compromised. After all, Fat Lui just a few days ago said [76] on Deskana's page. Thats quite the turn around from fangush to brandishing torches. Syrthiss 14:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to file a request for checkuser pertaining to this user. Although it reasons that I should be desysopped are vague, they apply to User:Crisspy and all his associated sockpuppets. --Lord Deskana (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Checkuser filed, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Crisspy. For now I will not talk to this user about his issues, as I suspect he is a sockpuppet of someone I blocked. Should the checkuser turn up false, I shall discuss this matter with the user... --Lord Deskana (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Already confirmed by Mackensen on that RFCU. Syrthiss 14:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Mackensen is oh-so-quick with responding to checkusers. He rocks. Thank you! --Lord Deskana (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Linkspamming from 12.148.252.66

Could someone take a look at 12.148.252.66 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) please? Note repeated warnings about linkspamming on the talk page and this user's immediate repost of reverted linkspam. Thanks! --Craig Stuntz 15:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I blocked them for 24 h for linkspam, we'll see if that takes care of it. Syrthiss 15:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again! --Craig Stuntz 15:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] jpgordon personal attacks, uncivil statements

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

The following are blatant violations of Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith,Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks,Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers,Wikipedia:Consensus. These entries also demonstrate a lack of willingness to cooperate or work with other Editors.

"Jew-haters get short shrift on Wikipedia. Get used to it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)"

Diff: [[77]]

"Not wanting input from Jew-haters into Jewish-related articles..."

Diff: [[78]]

"I'm quite willing to stipulate that I have a "lack of willingness to cooperate" with certain classes of editors, including most active hate-mongers. I'm not sure that cooperating with blatant Jew-haters is part of the Wikipedia social contract."

Diff: [[79]]

The context is User:Volksgeist (new user) and his involvement with the Israel article. Some other Editors deleted a quote [[80]] by a Israeli official, and Volkgeist brought it up in discussion. User:Jayjg responded with the judgement the quote "will never, ever stay on this article" because of personal animus he holds against Volkgeist because of some other uncited activity. [[81]] (The verifiability requirement makes Volkgeist's personal opinion irrelevant). User:Jayjg then told him to "go defend Hitler, apartheid, etc." [[82]]. User:Jayjg then associated his name, being a German word with being a Nazi [[83]]. Other Editors such as User:Jpgordon quickly followed with what I consider poor examples of what could have been a civil response, crossing the line even further with more attacks. As Volksgeist himself said, the problem appears to be a personal one and not the quote itself (which is verifiable) and continues to try to refocus on the subject which is the quote that was deleted. [[84]] [[85]] [[86]] [[87]] [[88]] [[89]] [[90]]. These personal attacks from other Editors are completely out of line and not an excuse for others to throw civility out the window and for everyone to pile on with personal insults. The hateful behavior in this matter has come from other editors, not Volksgeist (A NEW USER) who obviously is making goodfaith effort based on the increasingly frustrated tone of the 7 diffs above.

  • Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious to experienced Wikipedians is more likely due to ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you're 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good, Internet troll, a vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they're not. By being calm, interested, and respectful, your dignity is uplifted, and you further our project. [[91]]

Sarastro777 17:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Depends on whether those comments are an accurate representation of Volksgeist's remarks. I would like to see additional diffs in that regard. Editors are permitted to call a spade a spade. Mackensen (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Which is what was happening here, as I recall. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • One must assume good faith at the outset; one need not continue that assumption when it shown to be false[92][93] [94][95][96] AGF is not a suicide pact or an agreement not to pay attention to what people are actually doing and saying. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Can someone fill me in here? I can see that User:Volksgeist has made some severely controversial comments and abandoning good faith may well be justified, but one diff ([97], the fourth one in the previous post) that's being bandied around shows the user changing a header to something that is closer to the title of the article accompanying the conflict, 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, and inserting a statement that is supported by a source, from British newspaper The Telegraph and seems to have a valid claim to being NPOV. I can see that the edit summary is offensive, but why is the content being reverted? A more sensible approach would seem to be to give the user a civility warning. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Frankly I've never seen a civility warning do anything other than escalate the situation. Mackensen (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I quite like this ([98]) diff. Apologies if it's already been listed. --Dweller 18:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm quite willing to stipulate that I have a "lack of willingness to cooperate" with certain classes of editors, including most active hate-mongers. I'm not sure that cooperating with blatant Jew-haters is part of the Wikipedia social contract. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to Sarastro777's inaccurate summary, I did not revert Volksgeist because of "some other uncited activity", nor did I assume he was a Nazi because of his name was a German word. Volksgeist, in fact, reverted someone with an edit summary that included the phrase "Just because you are a Jewish" and accused them of dual loyalty on their talk page. He has also argued that the French and British started WWII, not the Germans, defended apartheid, defended Adolf Hitler, ranted about The Jews in the media and how the media is unfair to "white people", about the kind of power Jews have over the US, about how the "Jews of the world" are shoving "diversity" and "acceptance" down the throat of European peoples and again about "the incredible power that large Jewish-controlled media conglomerates have over the American public and media". jpgordon did indeed call a spade a spade. It is disappointing that Sarastro777 would summarize this issue so completely inaccurately; indeed, one wonders why he has attempted to bring jpgordon to this board, rather than Volksgeist. Jayjg (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In that quote from the Hitler talk page, he seems to be asking for a reference (Haiden 1937). This edit seems to have been made in response to the query. Is there anything I am missing? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you appear to be missing the 8 other edits I linked to. Jayjg (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
That edit, in isolation, is indeed nothing to write home about; it's just part of the larger context of this editor's expressed beliefs. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This is exactly what I am talking about.
    • Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious to experienced Wikipedians is more likely due to ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you're 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good, Internet troll, a vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they're not. By being calm, interested, and respectful, your dignity is uplifted, and you further our project. [[99]] Sarastro777 18:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Get real. There's no form of good-faith ignorance that justifies, excuses, or even makes reasonable blatant Jew-hatred such as he has expressed -- and you'd have a lot of difficulty finding a single editor who has become a useful editor rather than a hatemonger after a start like that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Sarastro777, he's been editing here for 7 months now; let's not make silly excuses. And I am using Hanlon's Razor: with you. Jayjg (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Exactly... so wouldn't it seem obvious since I am not a new user, I am talking about the way you and others have treated the new user we are discussing User:Volksgeist? Sarastro777 18:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ooh, he keeps doing it! I guess that's how "the tribe" operates, independent of the nation stupid enough to take them in.[100] Do you really think this guy is even remotely operating in good faith, Sarastro? Do you think a person who expresses things like this is capable of NPOV? (And Volksgeist has been around since December of 2005, at least; hardly a new user.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It would appear he is increasing his rhetoric in line with personal attacks calling him "jew-hater", which is why civility is important. There certainly has been documented provocation. 64.186.246.122 19:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see any real support for censuring jpgordon here. A spade is a spade. I suggest that the matter is closed. Mackensen (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture (2nd nomination)

I nominated this for deletion, but it is obvious that there is WP:SNOW chance of this AfD succeeding. Someone want to close it as withdrawn nom?--Isotope23 19:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. (actually, you could have done it yourself)--Doc 20:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of cosmology query

In "Talk:Timeline of cosmology", I have asked another editor what I believe are reasonable questions concerning their edits. They are now refusing to respond to my queries, claiming I am baiting them. I am doing no such thing. Any suggestions? --Iantresman 20:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:DR. --Doc 20:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
It says "First step: talk to the other parties involved". I've done that, but have been refused a response. Now what?
Read on to the next steps. --Doc 21:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems - User:Paul Arnott

This user came to my attention today because he made a separate page for Karen Carpenter, which was a redirect to The Carpenters, and it showed up on #vandalism-en-wp. I checked the page and it looked like a copyvio to me, and sure enough it was - taken verbatim from the Internet Movie Database.

I reverted it back to a redirect page, then went to notify him, but it seems like this is SOP for Paul Arnott. He's got warning after warning after warning for copyvio problems, mostly local news anchors that he kept recreating after they were deleted. Mets501 blocked him for 24 hours on August 14, but that apparently hasn't fazed him at all. I put up another warning and am bringing it here because the guy seems determined to plagiarize. Thanks. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 21:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Metz got him again - for 7 days. Third strike and he's out. --Doc 21:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jadger

Jadger (talk • contribs) has falsely accused me of various fancy things at Talk:Extermination through labour. I asked him at his talk page to provide some backup for his claims or to remove the remarks, but to no avail, which makes me think that his comment is ordinary libel, intended to tarnish my good name. As per WP:NPA I removed the remark several times in a row, but it's been inserted back. Any ideas what could be done with it? Could any of the admins instruct Jadger that spreading lies and accusations of other users is not what makes Wikipedia better? //Halibutt 22:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/m/Wikipedia%7EAdministrators%27_noticeboard_IncidentArchive129_ba5a.html"